John Wycliffe the Brave...

[bbbbbbb]

It is so refreshing to read someone saying this. How the parable of the talents comes to mind...

And in that parable we read of three servants, each of whom acted of their own accord in utilizing the talents so that the master had no control over their use. Thus, the results of their decisions were entirely their own responsibility and not the master's. To assert that the outcome was predetermined and so controlled by the master that it was his work and his responsibility entirely, is a complete distortion of the parable.

 

[bbbbbbb]

the Venerable Bede was reading the Scriptures in English way back in the 8th century or so. the story of Wycliffe is pure crap. its a legend. a hero based on myth really. i know its just sooo horrible to recognize good things that the Catholic Church did.

So? Here is the OP to refresh your memory -

"John Wycliffe the Brave...
"The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!"

Whether or not the Venerable Bede was reading the Bible, or at least portions of it, in English in the eighth century is tangential to the fact that John Wycliffe strove to make the Bible available to all to read. I seriously doubt that the Venerable Bede had the slightest inkling to do so. The issue was not so much the translation of the Bible, but to what purpose it was then used. Thus, we end up with the Venerable Bede and not the Brave Bede and John Wycliffe the Brave and not John Wycliffe the Venerable.

 

[jckstraw72]

i would imagine that the Venerable Bede was very interested in the laity reading the Scriptures. he wasnt just writing copious commentaries for nobody ...

i was responding to the fact that the Catholic Church is always lambasted for supposedly not wanting the laity to read the Scriptures in their own language and thus John Wycliffe is a hero! thats just a lie.

 

[Dorothea]

Thank you for the clarification. That still excludes a very large segment of Christendom, if, as the Catholic Church teaches, every person who has had a trinitarian baptism is a Christian. I agree that one's appreciation is firmly related to one's understanding and can agree that the symbolism of the bread and wine is paramount to understanding the mass. However, even with that understanding one is perplexed to see the body and blood of Jesus Christ, except as symbolically portrayed in the bread and win.

The Orthodox Church practices closed Communion because it has to do with believing the dogma and doctrine of the Church and being a member because of believing what the church teaches that one partakes of the Eucharist. Since other Christian churches have different dogmas and doctrines, they would not agree with the OC's teachings (to some degree), thus, why would they partake there? In the same instance, the OC cannot partake in other Churches because of the very reasons I explained. The OC doesn't share the same dogmas and doctrine (teachings) as other churches completely.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Orthodox Church practices closed Communion because it has to do with believing the dogma and doctrine of the Church and being a member because of believing what the church teaches that one partakes of the Eucharist. Since other Christian churches have different dogmas and doctrines, they would not agree with the OC's teachings (to some degree), thus, why would they partake there? In the same instance, the OC cannot partake in other Churches because of the very reasons I explained. The OC doesn't share the same dogmas and doctrine (teachings) as other churches completely.

Herein lies the difficulty. If a church practices closed communion for the reasons you set forth (which some denominations do) then they are effectively stating that the one body referenced in the New Testament is their denomination only and that all other Christian denominations are not a part of that body at all.

Thus, the practice of closed communion is a pivotal foundation point for ultimate claims of exclusivity of being the one and only True Church with all other being schismatic and apostate and all of their members being headed toward a lost eternity in the Lake of Fire unless they repent and join the one and only True Church. Your denomination borders at times on these claims, despite saying that you do know where the Church is and don't know where it is not.

 

[Dorothea]

double post.

 

[Dorothea]

Herein lies the difficulty. If a church practices closed communion for the reasons you set forth (which some denominations do) then they are effectively stating that the one body referenced in the New Testament is their denomination only and that all other Christian denominations are not a part of that body at all.

Thus, the practice of closed communion is a pivotal foundation point for ultimate claims of exclusivity of being the one and only True Church with all other being schismatic and apostate and all of their members being headed toward a lost eternity in the Lake of Fire unless they repent and join the one and only True Church. Your denomination borders at times on these claims, despite saying that you do know where the Church is and don't know where it is not.

We don't condemn people to hell. First, it's not our job to guess where people are going, and shouldn't be focusing on others but our own salvation. We pray for all when we pray.

Now, let me ask you this, bbbbbbb, if you disagree with a Church's doctrine, would you become a member of that Church? And if not, why would you care if they didn't allow you to partake of the Eucharist since you believe their teachings to be incorrect?

 

[bbbbbbb]

We don't condemn people to hell. First, it's not our job to guess where people are going, and shouldn't be focusing on others but our own salvation. We pray for all when we pray.

Now, let me ask you this, bbbbbbb, if you disagree with a Church's doctrine, would you become a member of that Church? And if not, why would you care if they didn't allow you to partake of the Eucharist since you believe their teachings to be incorrect?

I certainly admire and appreciate the fact that the Orthodox do not have a Pope issuing bulls of excommunication and condemnation to hell. Overall, as I hope you know by now, I hold the Orthodox in high esteem.

There is probably not a member of any church who believes every tidbit of doctrine unless the body of doctrine to be believed is relatively small, although not comprehensive. For example, l know many Catholics who practice birth control in one form or another. For them, that is not a pivotal issue although it is for their Church. In my own church it is not a doctrinal issue at all, nor is it in most churches.

I would not be a member of any church that believes that a piece of bread and a cup of wine turns magically into human flesh and human blood following the incantation of a sacred priest. However, no church as of this date claims that belief. The result, IMO, is that all Christians view the Eucharist symbolically. What that symbolism explicitly means is open to a very wide range of understandings, even within the members of a particular denomination. The only reason I might care about another church's beliefs concerning the Eucharist would be if I were living on a sun-drenched island in the Aegean See and the only church on the island was Orthodox. As a Christian I see partaking of the Eucharist (however understood) as an act of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. If I were prohibited from partaking then I might be concerned.

 

[Dorothea]

I certainly admire and appreciate the fact that the Orthodox do not have a Pope issuing bulls of excommunication and condemnation to hell. Overall, as I hope you know by now, I hold the Orthodox in high esteem.

There is probably not a member of any church who believes every tidbit of doctrine unless the body of doctrine to be believed is relatively small, although not comprehensive. For example, l know many Catholics who practice birth control in one form or another. For them, that is not a pivotal issue although it is for their Church. In my own church it is not a doctrinal issue at all, nor is it in most churches.

I would not be a member of any church that believes that a piece of bread and a cup of wine turns magically into human flesh and human blood following the incantation of a sacred priest. However, no church as of this date claims that belief. The result, IMO, is that all Christians view the Eucharist symbolically. What that symbolism explicitly means is open to a very wide range of understandings, even within the members of a particular denomination. The only reason I might care about another church's beliefs concerning the Eucharist would be if I were living on a sun-drenched island in the Aegean See and the only church on the island was Orthodox. As a Christian I see partaking of the Eucharist (however understood) as an act of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. If I were prohibited from partaking then I might be concerned.

Thank you for your respectful comments on my Church. I appreciate that.

The bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, and they are changed into His Body and Blood by the descension of the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts. Yet, it still looks like wine and bread as it's a mystery.

This is what is said when I receive Communion: "The handmaiden of God, Dorothea, receives the Body and Blood of Christ for the remission of sins and life everlasting." It's for the healing of soul and body, so it is good to receive it (I suppose that would be why you would think it would be obedience to God to do so?)

Anyway, I can see why you might find that concerning if you were on some island and the Orthodox CHurch was the only church there and you were not permitted to receive. The only answer to that would be to become a catachumen of the church and eventually a member.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you for your respectful comments on my Church. I appreciate that.

The bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, and they are changed into His Body and Blood by the descension of the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts. Yet, it still looks like wine and bread as it's a mystery.

This is what is said when I receive Communion: "The handmaiden of God, Dorothea, receives the Body and Blood of Christ for the remission of sins and life everlasting." It's for the healing of soul and body, so it is good to receive it (I suppose that would be why you would think it would be obedience to God to do so?)

Anyway, I can see why you might find that concerning if you were on some island and the Orthodox CHurch was the only church there and you were not permitted to receive. The only answer to that would be to become a catachumen of the church and eventually a member.

Thank you for your response. There are many excellent reasons to receive Communion and the primary reason not to would be sin in the life of the believer.

I agree concerning the only answer to the dilemma I posed. In a similar light, what would you do if you were living in an isolated town in America where the only Christian church was a Bible church that believed in a symbolic, but not sacramental view of the Eucharist and there was no Orthodox Church close enough to drive to on a weekly basis? For the sake of the discussion, let us say that this church would not exclude you from their Communion because of this particular belief, but otherwise held to Nicene Christianity.

 

[Dorothea]

Thank you for your response. There are many excellent reasons to receive Communion and the primary reason not to would be sin in the life of the believer.

I agree concerning the only answer to the dilemma I posed. In a similar light, what would you do if you were living in an isolated town in America where the only Christian church was a Bible church that believed in a symbolic, but not sacramental view of the Eucharist and there was no Orthodox Church close enough to drive to on a weekly basis? For the sake of the discussion, let us say that this church would not exclude you from their Communion because of this particular belief, but otherwise held to Nicene Christianity.

I'm not permitted to receive Communion outside of the Orthodox Church, so I would not join the church, and therefore not partake of their symbolic representation of the Eucharist.

For the record, it would have to be a pretty far drive. Like 3 hours or more. We used to drive an hour and a half to our Church when we lived in Panama City. We would drive to Ft. Walton Beach to the Orthodox Church there because there was no full-time priest at the small church in the Panama City area then.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not permitted to receive Communion outside of the Orthodox Church, so I would not join the church, and therefore not partake of their symbolic representation of the Eucharist.

For the record, it would have to be a pretty far drive. Like 3 hours or more. We used to drive an hour and a half to our Church when we lived in Panama City. We would drive to Ft. Walton Beach to the Orthodox Church there because there was no full-time priest at the small church in the Panama City area then.

Yes, that is why I said that it would not be a reasonable drive. We have a member in our church who drives 1 1/2 hours each way.

If you were in that situation that I outlined, then you would have a serious problem, but I believe that God is gracious and understanding so that if you were sincere in your faith He would show grace and mercy although you might be wrong in its application.

 

[Dorothea]

Yes, that is why I said that it would not be a reasonable drive. We have a member in our church who drives 1 1/2 hours each way.

If you were in that situation that I outlined, then you would have a serious problem, but I believe that God is gracious and understanding so that if you were sincere in your faith He would show grace and mercy although you might be wrong in its application.

Yep. It was the same for us. An hour and a half both ways, and that got pretty difficult during Holy Week, but my husband made every service that week! It was harder with me and my 3-year-old and pregnant with my second son at that time.

I agree that He would show mercy on me that I would not be able to partake of His Body and Blood on a more "regular" basis.

 

[prodromos]

I would not be a member of any church that believes that a piece of bread and a cup of wine turns magically into human flesh and human blood following the incantation of a sacred priest.

We certainly don't consider it magic, since magic is the domain of demons. We beleive the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ our God and Saviour through an act of divine condescension.

However, no church as of this date claims that belief. The result, IMO, is that all Christians view the Eucharist symbolically.

We do not view it as symbolic.

John

 

[bbbbbbb]

We certainly don't consider it magic, since magic is the domain of demons. We beleive the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ our God and Saviour through an act of divine condescension.
We do not view it as symbolic.

John

Your church does not deny the symbolism present in the Eucharist. Although it does not view it merely as symbolic, I am not aware of anything in the Catholic Catechism that speaks against any symbolic content.

Also, at present Catholic teaching is that although the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the "accidents" of bread and wine remain and are not transformed into human flesh and blood.

If this is not true, please cite the appropriate passages in the Catholic Catechism stating that physical flesh and human blood are transformed from bread and wine in the Eucharist.

Thank you.

 

[Secundulus]

Also, at present Catholic teaching is that although the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the "accidents" of bread and wine remain and are not transformed into human flesh and blood.

That is indeed the belief. However, that is not to say that it is simply symbolic. It is the physical body and blood of Christ in substance.

 

[Secundulus]

So? Here is the OP to refresh your memory -

"John Wycliffe the Brave...
"The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!"

Whether or not the Venerable Bede was reading the Bible, or at least portions of it, in English in the eighth century is tangential to the fact that John Wycliffe strove to make the Bible available to all to read. I seriously doubt that the Venerable Bede had the slightest inkling to do so. The issue was not so much the translation of the Bible, but to what purpose it was then used. Thus, we end up with the Venerable Bede and not the Brave Bede and John Wycliffe the Brave and not John Wycliffe the Venerable.

The actual history is more complex than is commonly taught to Protestants. The problem was not scriptures in the common language. The Church had been translating scriptures into the common language since the beginning.

The problem was that Wycliffe, and others, translated the scriptures to reflect their particular doctrinal beliefs and then added marginal notes to undermine the authority of the Church.

We can see the ultimate result of this approach in any bookstore today where innumerable preachers publish their own new and improved bibles with their own new and improved interpretations in the marginal notes and the new and improved denominations that constantly spring up in response.

This approach simply leads to exponentially increasing levels of confusion in the Body of Christ.

 

[JacksLadder]

The actual history is more complex than is commonly taught to Protestants. The problem was not scriptures in the common language. The Church had been translating scriptures into the common language since the beginning.

The problem was that Wycliffe, and others, translated the scriptures to reflect their particular doctrinal beliefs and then added marginal notes to undermine the authority of the Church.

We can see the ultimate result of this approach in any bookstore today where innumerable preachers publish their own new and improved bibles with their own new and improved interpretations in the marginal notes and the new and improved denominations that constantly spring up in response.

This approach simply leads to exponentially increasing levels of confusion in the Body of Christ.

Not really the average Protestant I have met generally knows more of the Bible than the average Catholic (I can't say anything about E.O.s because I have not met enough average members) The Catholics I have met that are in to scripture are interesting but I do not agree with all of thier conclusions. Although I have met some Catholics that refuse to do the whole Saint and Mary thing and just focus on Christ , I get along with them great

 

[lionroar0]

Not really the average Protestant I have met generally knows more of the Bible than the average Catholic (I can't say anything about E.O.s because I have not met enough average members) The Catholics I have met that are in to scripture are interesting but I do not agree with all of thier conclusions. Although I have met some Catholics that refuse to do the whole Saint and Mary thing and just focus on Christ , I get along with them great

Catholics can't refuse the communion of Saints. It's an article of the Catholic faith.

They ask for the intercession of the Saints and Mary at Mass and the communion of Saints is proclaimed in the creed in every mass.

It's impossible to focus on Christ and not the Saints. They go hand in hand. Those that focus on Christ and say they do not focus on the Saints have no clue what a Church is.

 

[MamaZ]

How is it impossible to focus on Christ and not the saints?