A conversation about unity.

[Servus]

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 doubt that happens. The Eucharist is of Christ, not the private property a church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I doubt that happens. The Eucharist is of Christ, not the private property a church.

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?

 

[Servus]

It sure looks like it.

Imagination isn't reality.

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?

We're all one in Christ.

It's honest policy.

It's a policy of Christians discriminating against Christians.

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're supposed to sharing in Christ.

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.

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.

That's not the truth, not only is baptism required but also a life of faith.

By believer in Christ I meant faith in Christ.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

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

It's difficult for me to believe that I must doubt my salvation. Don't recall that being a requirement of faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Some churches do, such as the Restorationist churches. For me, that's a sign of unity and fellowship among ALL in the Christian Faith.

 

[Servus]

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.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Actually the doctrine of the Orthodox Church (we are not sects) is very nearly identical to that of the Roman Catholic 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.

Even the declaration of all people of faith being under the umbrella of "catholic" is a kind of a technical sham/scam. There is no such place for other believers who knowingly, openly disagree (I believe legitimately disagree, but of course that's not allowed and that side of their official position is rarely published or discussed, along with the feigned open arms around other people of faith by the church officials.) They just want to spin one side of the coin. The E.O. may be a little more rigid and closed to others of the faith in this regard, but I don't have as much exposure to them here in the U.S.

And the hypocrisy that has grown up around such subjects as abortion for example, where openly declared people of supposed faith that are public figures and publicly support abortion are never pinpointed and chastised as examples, and the church just drives them along with half the congregants who followed their leads, to sit in the pews as promulgated heretics, still walking up for communion. And this of course has contributed greatly to moral decline across the board, everywhere.

Who can take such organizations seriously?

The reality is, IF they really cracked down on what they really believe, there would be vastly fewer numbers of congregants. And that's just on one subject. We could go on here at length. When I was a kid Roman catholic priests and protestant pastors would condemn each others flocks to hell from the pulpit. I do appreciate the rhetoric being turned down, but it remains there under the surface. And that one fact probably greatly contributes to the decline of these various organizations and even Christianity in general. The organizations might trot out the threat from time to time, but only when it's a convenient threat.

What the laity believes really doesn't matter anyway. How many people "really" have deep interests to start with? I'd say maybe 10-15% of the active members. And why so little in depth interests? Because as non clergy members it just doesn't matter what they think anyway. They just take what they're given as a general rule and that is all they are allowed to believe by the churches. They have what they need, so be done with it.

And let's face it. We all actually do agree with the Nicene creed. That's probably as close as it's going to get and close enough to keep things semi-cohesive. I really detest having to think any Christian is potentially bound to hell to start with. It's putrid to me and an affront to my conscience.

At least in some (semi) orthodox sects like episcopalian's and credits to the RCC for a heterodox position of all people could be in purgatory, you're not "forced" to believe that hell is the case for anyone.

I find it much easier to love my neighbors as myself without the "mandatory hell" component for anyone.

So what is the formula for unity? I'd suggest maybe we all just stop trying to figure out how to condemn ourselves and others to hell to start with. That really is the wedge that keeps people divided and constantly bickering and perpetually judging. But then again that's the BIG STICK used to have cohesiveness in these various sects as well, so I doubt that will ever happen. In fact I know it won't change. It can't. Not possible.

 

[tampasteve]

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.

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.

 

[tampasteve]

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.

 

[jas3]

In what way?
And I am a UK Methodist, by the way, which may be different from the UMC.

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.

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.

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.

All it means is that a preacher from one tradition goes to another church and preaches there.

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.
• It puts someone who is in schism from the Church in a teaching position, which is already an abandonment of the priest's duties.
• 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.
• 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. Maybe one of the Catholics on here knows. An Orthodox priest who did that would absolutely be up for laicization.

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.

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.

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

Thank you for the information.

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.

A Methodist Minister is a priest with holy orders - called, ordained, anointed.
We just don't call them priests.

• 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.

Maybe.
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'. I'm afraid all that happened was that families were 15 minutes later getting away than they hoped and I was left feeling underwhelmed by the Catholics idea of unity.

• 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.

What can I say?
The Catholic church agreed to take part in the pulpit exchange, and knew, for at least 3 weeks beforehand, they would be exchanging with the Methodists.
If it could really have led to the priest losing his office, I hope he would have had the courage to refuse to go - no matter how inconvenient for anybody else.

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.

- I'm not a Pastor.
- I didn't think I should be able to deliver the homily; I was told we were swapping with the Catholics and I would be giving a sermon. Whether a sermon is different to a homily or not, I have no idea. In previous years, other denominations had been to the church and been able to preach.
- I did not say that I thought I should be allowed to take communion. My first thought was that, as it was for the week of prayer for Christian unity, they might have Mass at a different time and have a different kind of service when I was there. When it became clear that they were going to go ahead with a Mass, I hoped that they might be prepared to allow their guest preacher to receive it - in the interests of Christian Unity, which was what that week was all about.
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. Better still, if the priest had any integrity, he should have pulled out of the arrangement. He was at the service anyway; the congregation would still have had a sermon and there would have been no problem.

Whatever anyone thinks of me, I wouldn't dream of going into a Catholic church, saying nothing, receiving Mass and then letting them know that they had compromised their position. I'm also not so arrogant that I think I can demand anything.

 

[jas3]

A Methodist Minister is a priest with holy orders - called, ordained, anointed.
We just don't call them priests.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

Better still, if the priest had any integrity, he should have pulled out of the arrangement.

On this we agree.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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 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.

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.

All I can think is that they assumed it was common knowledge that people who aren't baptized Catholics can't receive communion.

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.

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.

Seems some Protestants just want to receive communion in a Catholic Church, I do not know why.

On this we agree.

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

And if someone had said that I would have tried to get out of going.
I think God cares more than someone has been hurt and felt alienated, that he does about liturgy being interrupted.

Seems some Protestants just want to receive communion in a Catholic Church, I do not know why.

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?

Do I have an obsession, or any kind of desire to receive communion in a Catholic church? No.
I don't even have the intention of going into one.

 

[Strong in Him]

Not according to anyone outside of Methodism, and in the case of women not even according to John Wesley himself.

Methodist Ministers - male and female - are called by God, equipped and blessed by God, anointed by God and trained and ordained by his church.
If some members of the church choose not to recognise that, that's their loss.

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.

Agreed.

All I can think is that they assumed it was common knowledge that people who aren't baptized Catholics can't receive communion.

Too many assumptions going on.
Someone should have asked the Priest if he had been willing to be part of the exchange - and he wasn't stupid, he knew it happened every year. They should also have asked me if I would be willing to go and preach on Christian Unity in a church that would not let me fully join in with their service - i.e. take communion, because they weren't going to have a non communion service that I could have participated in. And told me that I'd have to preach when the service was over - never mind hurting your feelings, we can't have the congregation being upset.

All this was almost 20 years ago and, although I have mentioned it on these forums before, I don't hold a grudge nor am I obsessed with it.
As far as I am concerned, Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ - the Catholic chaplain at our local hospital is lovely. Some Catholics have told me that if I reject their church I am rejecting Christ. This is utter nonsense and makes it more likely that I will steer clear of Catholic churches in the future.
So much for unity.

 

[Servus]

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.

I partook before I found out I wasn't allowed to. I was just another one in line to receive a wafer.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And if someone had said that I would have tried to get out of going.
<SNIP>

Well, now you know, and your solution above is likely best for all concerned.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, now you know, and your solution above is likely best for all concerned.

My solution of never again setting foot in a Catholic church? Agreed.

So much for unity.

 

[Hazelelponi]

How sad that churches are less charitable than Jesus.

I don't actually know what's wrong with closed communion. I support closed communion.

Where the Bible says "don't eat with such a one" in reference to unregenerate, unrepentant, hypocritical sinners it's not talking about refusing to attend a dinner party where said person might also be invited (though we can also inference be wary of the company you keep as well) it's talking about the Lord's Supper hence why excommunication was also spoken of during the same exchange.

We don't need a false unity, but a rightly expressed brotherhood that's something perhaps beyond church particulars. We all get on as neighbors and friends.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My solution of never again setting foot in a Catholic church? Agreed.

So much for unity.

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.

So, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

This: On the very first day, in his class-room, in his very first words to us, he stated "we are each here for different reasons, I am here to teach, you are here to learn; if you are not in agreement with this arrangement, there is the door, get out, we don't want you".

Everyone knew where they stood, even though some of us were destined to go into industry, some taking another direction. In his classroom, we accepted his rules; I was one who did not follow into the tool and die, but fell back into engineering later in life. Regardless, we shared a friendship and mutual respect that lasted until his passing.

This is like Christian unity, ultimately, we may not agree, but we do respect an honor the house rules. Not always do we have clergy that spell it out as clearly as Morris Smith did in that class room so many years ago, but non of us are that naive that we should not know enough to find out ahead of time and either behave in a respectful and edifying manner in the houses of others.

When you are welcomed by someone, as a guest and are shown hospitality, it does not mean that you are welcome to sleep with the wife of the person who invited you into their home.