Immaculate Conception

[Major1]

Very simple: 90% or more of Protestants in the world are functionally One Church. When I say "Protestant" I'm referring to that. That is the Church you both belong to do. I don't identify you with those who don't consider you a part of the One Church. Those people do not share an identity with you in this sense, and so I will only deal with them distinctly from you, not as part of your Church, because they aren't part of it.

Can you please post for me the link from where you continue to get such questionable information?

 

[Major1]

You are correct on your definition of the world, it means whole, entire, universal, complete. However, we don't believe "catholic" here means "the entirety of those who identify as Christian," but rather, "the complete Body of Christ". Because, you see, we don't believe simply identifying as Christian is sufficient to make you a part of the Body of Christ.

You said.........
"Because, you see, we don't believe simply identifying as Christian is sufficient to make you a part of the Body of Christ."

Then can you tell me what it does take for a man to be considered a Christian????

Please post the Bible Scriptures that validate your comment.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It is very important when in a debate or discussion to represent everyone's beliefs an accurately. Not all Protestants have open communion. The LCMS, for example, practices closed communion.

Likewise, In regards to some other posts, you can't apply the same concept of the one catholic universal church in the Protestant world to mean that they all believe the same thing or that a website represents them all. It's just not the nature of the Protestant church. The viewpoint is very different, and the Orthodox understanding cannot be applied equally to the Protestant understanding.

I'm not agreeing with open communion, and I am not defending other people's beliefs. I do strongly believe we need to be accurate in our discussions, especially when we disagree.

I will second this.

I want to say this gently, and I'm not sure what the overall point is (I just stumbled in and if I posted in this thread earlier I know I've missed a lot) ...

But I'm afraid there IS some misinformation. The situation is really much more complex than that. Some Lutherans, I know for sure, practice closed communion only within their own synod, so not even all other Lutherans, much less non-Lutheran Protestants. Baptists tend to open communion to all who have been baptized and claim Christ. Methodists will open communion to anyone - believer or not - and they believe in the Real Presence.


I'm trying to understand what's going on. But all Protestants are not essentially "one Church" in the same way Orthodoxy means it. Though most will probably agree to all Christians being one body, and may consider "the Church" to be an invisible entity consisting of all Christians. Some believe Communion implies real doctrinal unity, and so close communion. Some believe communion only requires membership in the Body. And some don't believe Communion implies anything at all if the sort.

When you have different understandings of what Church is, and what Communion means, it is very easy to misunderstand one another. And logical conclusions also can't always be drawn in the same way, if the whole premise and the included definitions are not the same.

Please let's be careful not to imply things we don't mean to imply, and try to understand one another.

(I'm saying that to all of us, not singling you out, All4Christ, but I quoted your post because I think it was a good reminder where I saw the convo seemed to be going off track.)

Peace to all.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You said.........
"Because, you see, we don't believe simply identifying as Christian is sufficient to make you a part of the Body of Christ."

Then can you tell me what it does take for a man to be considered a Christian????

Please post the Bible Scriptures that validate your comment.

We believe that the introduction into the Body of Christ, which is the Church, is baptism. Before anyone gets upset, please understand that the beliefs of denominations which were developed in recent centuries came about under a very different set of circumstances.

Orthodoxy was hidden away, since the early days, and except for the schism with Rome, had no other part in the changes that have taken place. The Protestant reformation had nothing to do with us.

When the Ethiopian believed, he was immediately baptized. When Cornelius and his family were shown to be believers, they were baptized. All believers were immediately baptized. This is why we see baptism as entry into the Body. It was always so.

As to what makes someone a Christian, that sounds like asking for judgement upon a person's soul. We steadfastly refuse to do that. Christ alone knows the heart, Christ alone judges.

There will likely be those baptized who are not truly Christian in the end. And likely those who are not baptized who will be judged by Christ to be so. Baptism is only the first step, the formal entry into the Church, but it must be accompanied by true faith and a life lived for God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Two years ago, I was at the funeral of such a young man. He was saved and the Catholic church told his parents they were not to have any fellowship with hi. The actual words said to him by his mother was.....
"You are dead to us and goin to hell".

That 40 year old man never spoke to his parents again and as I said died of cancer two years ago.

That is very, very sad. I'm really sorry to hear that. FWIW, that doesn't even sound like typical Catholic procedure. They may not participate in anything sacramental by a family member who leaves Catholicism (they might not go to a wedding or baptism) but I've never heard of complete shunning. Not to say it doesn't happen, but in every case I've heard talked about, it didn't. This situation you describe is very grievous.

when a Catholic church member actually got s... and chose to leave the Catholic church.

You might wish to edit this part. It is against the rules to imply that other Nicene Christians are not Christian. (And I'll edit this out too, if you do - drop me a pm if I miss it.)

Peace to you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, shall I take it that now the conversation has completely wandered off the OP we are all in agreement that the Immaculate Conception is a Dogma unique to the Catholic Church?

 

[FenderTL5]

So, shall I take it that now the conversation has completely wandered off the OP we are all in agreement that the Immaculate Conception is a Dogma unique to the Catholic Church?

[/thread]

 

[All4Christ]

So, shall I take it that now the conversation has completely wandered off the OP we are all in agreement that the Immaculate Conception is a Dogma unique to the Catholic Church?

Yes, it is unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So, shall I take it that now the conversation has completely wandered off the OP we are all in agreement that the Immaculate Conception is a Dogma unique to the Catholic Church?

Yes, it is unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

Indeed.

That shouldn't have taken more than a few posts to verify/clarify ... and we are at near 300?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed.

That shouldn't have taken more than a few posts to verify/clarify ... and we are at near 300?

That amazes me, as well.

 

[All4Christ]

 

[All4Christ]

Honestly, lately I have had trouble staying on topic...

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Southern Baptists do not have an "excommunication" process as is thought of taking place in certain other faiths such as the Catholic church.

Certainly there is church discipline when a member stops attending church or is found in immorality. But those cases are almost always treated by counseling and prayer. Immorality and heresy rarely jeopardize
membership. Churches in practice deny their authority to judge the belief and behavior of individual members.

The cases I personally know of where excommunication and the cut off of communion was when a Catholic church member actually got saved and chose to leave the Catholic church. The catholic church then made sure that there was no family interaction what so ever.

Two years ago, I was at the funeral of such a young man. He was saved and the Catholic church told his parents they were not to have any fellowship with hi. The actual words said to him by his mother was.....
"You are dead to us and goin to hell".

That 40 year old man never spoke to his parents again and as I said died of cancer two years ago.

What do you make of 1 Corinthians 5:11?

We should always seek to save sinners, but sharing Communion with someone who seriously sins without any repentance is clearly not acceptable. Bringing up Rome has nothing to do with this, since I was not talking about excommunication in that sense, just in the sense of no longer sharing Communion.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Can you please post for me the link from where you continue to get such questionable information?

Open communion - Wikipedia

Most Protestants practice open Communion.

 

[All4Christ]

Open communion - Wikipedia

Most Protestants practice open Communion.

Just FYI, open communion in many Protestant Churches doesn't indicate the same thing that it does in Orthodoxy. I'm not saying you'll view it the way they do - but it isn't understood in the same way. Open communion to them doesn't mean having the same beliefs in every theological area.

 

[Major1]

Open communion - Wikipedia

Most Protestants practice open Communion.

The Lords Supper IMO should open to all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth and have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus..

Now, who should determine who loves the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth, the prospective participant, or the church to whom the Lord Jesus has entrusted this ordinance?

It is really a no-brainer IMO, since it is the Lord's Supper, no church has the right to prohibit anyone from partaking.

 

[Major1]

Just FYI, open communion in many Protestant Churches doesn't indicate the same thing that it does in Orthodoxy. I'm not saying you'll view it the way they do - but it isn't understood in the same way. Open communion to them doesn't mean having the same beliefs in every theological area.

Correct. The "OPEN" means that anyone Christian who has been saved by the grace of God through the shed blood of Jesus is invited to partake.

 

[Major1]

What do you make of 1 Corinthians 5:11?

We should always seek to save sinners, but sharing Communion with someone who seriously sins without any repentance is clearly not acceptable. Bringing up Rome has nothing to do with this, since I was not talking about excommunication in that sense, just in the sense of no longer sharing Communion.

A little leaven will leaven the whole lump. Sin must always be dealt with. IF the church is aware of "known" sin then it can certainly not permit a person to partake of the Lords Supper.

 

[All4Christ]

The Lords Supper IMO should open to all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth and have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus..

Now, who should determine who loves the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth, the prospective participant, or the church to whom the Lord Jesus has entrusted this ordinance?

It is really a no-brainer IMO, since it is the Lord's Supper, no church has the right to prohibit anyone from partaking.

So the issue isn't whether someone should or should not be able to partake of the Lord's Supper; the reason for closed communion is due to the understanding of what communion means. It isn't just saying that we are partaking of the Lord's Supper because we are Christians, but also says that we affirm and believe the same faith - hence being in communion with each other.

Partaking of communion within a church body has - until modern times- been an assent that you have come to a place of agreement with their teachings. The Orthodox Church affirms that belief today.

ETA: We also take the "not unto our condemnation" part very seriously. This also helps ensure that only those who are properly prepared receive communion. We fast before the Eucharist, must be at peace with each other, etc. If someone doesn't have that same understanding, they shouldn't receive communion from that church, but rather should receive the Eucharist in a place that they can fully affirm the beliefs promoted by that church. Likewise, if someone isn't in a right state with God or is not properly prepared, they should not receive the Eucharist, even if they are a part of the Church community.

To us, Communion requires full affirmation of beliefs. To many Protestants today, it requires affirmation of belief in Christ and a salvation experience - and at times, baptism. Other "non-core" beliefs can vary. It requires some beliefs to be held, whereas we consider communion to be an affirmation of the entirety of the Church's theological beliefs.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Lords Supper IMO should open to all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth and have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus..

Now, who should determine who loves the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth, the prospective participant, or the church to whom the Lord Jesus has entrusted this ordinance?

It is really a no-brainer IMO, since it is the Lord's Supper, no church has the right to prohibit anyone from partaking.

There are arguments for both positions. My church, the ELCA, practices open communion: no one is barred from coming to the Table, though it's generally expected that if you are present and worshiping that you are a baptized Christian. On the other hand, the LCMS practices closed communion; and their reasons for doing so aren't without merit: when we come to receive the Holy Eucharist we are receiving the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, this isn't just a churchly ritual, it is a Holy Sacrament in which Christ Himself is tangibly present. There should be a deep reverence for receiving God Himself. Further, when we partake we are confessing our common faith; that's what "confess" means, to "together-admitting", "together-speaking". If we are not, in fact, confessing and are not together sharing in common faith (in particular here, the true body and blood of our God and Savior) then partaking of the Sacrament together becomes a kind of act of theater and hypocrisy--we are in some sense lying to one another and to God.

I think arguments can be made for both practices; it depends on the angle one wants to look.

But at no point can we imagine that this isn't a serious topic, because it is. It may not seem that way if someone doesn't believe that the bread and wine are Jesus Christ Himself truly and actually; but for those of us who believe that this is Christ Himself--not a sign, a symbol, or a token, but actual Jesus--it can't be anything other than a serious topic.

-CryptoLutheran