This is a continuation of Robert's (Rum Orthodox) discussion that began with the issue of the Pope's mistake calling Catholics to commemorate part of the Muslim holy season that celebrates the "revelation' of the Quran (Koran). As the topic has veered away from Ramadan and Islam I thought it best to move to a new thread.

Charity towards born Protestants, including Episcopal women ministers, in the form of some common Christian prayer, up to and including the equivalent of the hours/office like Matins or Evensong, is something I really haven't got a problem with as long as it is done properly and without scandal. I don't think the canon against praying with heretics really applies because these people were born into Protestantism and didn't choose error — the Greek heresein means to pick and choose which Catholic and Orthodox teachings one accepts and rejects.

Mistakes include implying the Protestants, male or female, who claim episcopacy really are bishops, like when the Pope had Dr George Carey in mitre and cope alongside him and the very real Orthodox bishop who took part in opening the Vatican's Holy Door for the recent Holy Year.

Privately and discreetly, I have no problem with Catholics and Orthodox visiting Anglo-Catholic Anglican Masses, with of course all-male clergy celebrants, noncommuning of course, as part of the congregation, or, in the case of clergy, being guest preachers but of course not (con)celebrants. To such I give the same reverent agnosticism, perhaps more than that, many Orthodox give all non-Orthodox worship. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a reward for their faith and sincerity and despite a probable objective lack of real holy orders, God transubstantiates bread and wine regularly on those people's altars. Their belief about the Eucharist is the same as ours.

Despite past prohibitions, I also would have no problem with an apostolic Christian reading the lesson at any of these services, including High Anglican Masses.

What should women Episcopal ministers, including "bishops', be called? Well, in public/business correspondence, etc., whatever title they affect, such as "Bishop Jane Dixon'. Privately, I refer to most Protestant clergy as most used to refer to themselves, with secular courtesy titles (Mr or Dr Smith). Thus Jane Dixon is Mrs Dixon. There is a logic to "priestess', sure, plus it points out such aren't in the apostolic tradition. Usually, though, I try to be charitable and refer to all such as ministers.

Sometimes I think perhaps the Anglican churches are being used as the devil's specific parody and counterfeit of real apostolic Churches. Every time a woman minister of theirs makes the news, the secular media try to stick it to us Cathodox (and Oriental apostolics) by referring to her as a "priest', even though she herself may be a sincere Protestant and is happy being called a minister.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Serge,

Great post.

But I must say this, being charitable is a two way street. I think you alluded to this at the end of your post.

Not that long ago, the Methodist Church next to my parish, St Nicholas the Wonderworker Melkite Greek Catholic Church, had us over for a picnic after our Divine Liturgy.

At this picnic, the woman minister was introduced to us as the pastor. I think she was even addressed this way. She refused to call our pastor as father, she address him as Ken, not Father Ken. This sort of annoyed me, as Father Ken did address her as Reverend (I believe, it has been awhile).

At an ecumenical prayer service put together by the Latin Diocese of Rochester, NY, this minister was given a reading from the Bible that is not in the protestant Bible. She read it with a comment that she doesn't get to read that book that often.

I think both of these instances showed a lack of charity. One from the protestant minister refusing to call a priest Father, the other by the Catholic Diocese by assigning a reading to a protestant minister from a book that they do not recognize as part of the Bible.

Just my 2 cents, or for you Canadians out there, just my nickle.

David

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Well, I appreciate both of the post above, which do show a charity that was sadly lacking from some other posts.

I will throw out a few additional points to ponder. I would think how Lord Carey dresses is his own business, and since our own Byzantine non-bishops sometimes wear a miter, I can't see calling the Pope mistaken on this.

I also don't think one is expected to making theological assertions by using common titles. As you know (hi, Alex!) I don't beleive in monarchy, but I have no probelm addressing nobles and monarchs accordingly.

Lastly, let me offer this point to ponder, which I actually think Serge and David might even be able to endorse. If a particular Protestant denomination does not have an iconic understanding of Eucharitic presidency, then it is that issue which is the point of difference between us and them. Belitting comments or limitations on ecumencial activities with their women clergy while allowing a different standard for their male clergy is improper. To restate, we have a theologial difference with those Christian communities that do not have an iconic understanding of Eucharistic presidency. Being a male or female clergyperson within those denominations is not something that requires different behavior on our part. Right?

K.

Thanks, David. Good point re: conduct at the church picnic. I think the incident at the ecumenical service may have been an honest oversight, perhaps out of ignorance by a born Catholic who didn't realize not all the Old Testament is in most Protestant Bibles.

"Reverend Smith' is an ecumenical way to be wrong all the time. "The Reverend' is used like "the Hono(u)rable' is used for political officeholders and judges. Just like one wouldn't address a senator or Member of Parliament as "Honorable Smith' (sounds like bad dialogue from a '30s Charlie Chan movie), so ministers of religion aren't addressed as "Reverend'. "Pastor Smith' is fine — it's used especially by Lutherans (guess it would more likely be Pastor Schmidt or Pastor Svensson, ja?) but also by Methodists and some other Protestants. Lutherans even use an abbreviation, "Pr', like our "Fr'. The use of clergy titles instead of secular courtesy titles by nonliturgical Protestants (not Anglicans or Lutherans) seems pretty new. Perhaps it is Catholic influence in America. And actually, not too long ago, lots of Anglican ministers were "Mr Smith'; only consciously identified Anglo-Catholics were "Fr Smith'.

Of course, among us Easterns it's "Fr John' or "Bishop Mark' and not "Fr Smith' or "Bishop Smith'.

Note about the use of "Monsignor': technically of course it's always a papal title, an honorific given to priests, but in non-English-speaking countries "Mgr Claudel' could be a bishop. Historically (through the mid-20th century) Catholic books sometimes would refer to Orthodox bishops by this title: the patriarch of Moscow was "Mgr Tikhon'. (An interesting-looking acknowledgement that he was a real bishop, but also kind of a backhanded insult denying his right to his Orthodox see?) French-speaking Orthodox bishops still do this themselves. Until recently (about 10 years ago) the Ruthenian Church's "spinoff', the Orthodox Johnstown Diocese, gave the title to its archpriests, who wore Roman monsignor's cassocks. They call them protopresbyters now, and the younger ones are "Fr John', but older ones are still sometimes "Mgr Dutko'. Just like in their Ruthenian mother Church.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Another aspect of charity, ISTM, is respecting the "rules" of another community when attending a liturgy there. The Roman Church, as is well and widely known, has a restrictive communion policy, but does not seek to enforce this during the liturgy. Sometimes there are unfortunate Protestants in attendance who abuse this enforcement policy.

I unfortunately had to attend a Roman Catholic requiem Mass last summer, and several of my Protestant (liturgical church) work colleagues approached the chalice and received without incident. Needless to say, I did not do so (neither did the other Orthodox person present). Now, I am not a Roman Catholic, and so it doesn't offend my own sensibilities to see that happening among Western Christian brethren, but at the same time it seems like a glaring offense against charity, and a clear disregard of the well-known rules of a cousin Western ecclesial community, does it not?

Brendan

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Brendan,

Well, it could only be viewed as an offense if one knew for a fact that the Protestant party was fully aware of the Catholic understanding. From what I am aware, Protestants are less than universally aware of the point of Catholic understanding.

On the title "Father" it is not only new to Anglicans but Catholics as well. Up until the 19th century, the title 'Father' was used only monastic Catholic priests. 'Mister' was used by diocesan priests. Cardinal Manning was the initiator of the practice of using 'Father'.

K.

Kurt --

Well, one of the parties was an ex-Catholic who is now a Lutheran -- she *certainly* knows the rules, and openly flouted them. That was disrespectful -- in a back-handed, sneaky way, in my opinion.

Brendan

Brendan,

As to the particular case as you described it, it certainly was inappropriate.

Not much more can be said about the particular Mass you were at and the particular people you know.

In the general sense, it can be understandable that many or most non-Catholics do not fully understand our Catholic views. We do not view the Eucharist as a prize given out to those who pass a test of theological authority or to persons who have sufficently toed the line on a certain set of church policies (with the acceptance of each of these false propositions then producing a cottage industry of how far on each to qualify). Catholicism finds no scandal in Protestants receiving the Eucharist, per se. After all, while on this earth, Our Lord's body came into phyiscal contact with tax collector, prostitutes, and sinners of every variety, few who fully understood what He was all about. Certainly we are not scandalized by His body coming into contact with Protestants who are seeking him.

Brendan, for example, who is much more educated than the average Protestant approaching Communionin a Catholic church, makes a common error in saying the Catholic Church has a "restrictive communion policy".

NOT TRUE NOT TRUE NOT TRUE

The Catholic policy is NOT restrictive -- it is comprehensive. In some denominations at communion, they may invite those present to join them in eucharistic communion. In Catholicism, we would find this (for us, with no criticism of others) rude. It would be like holding a dinner party and inviting some guests only to certain portions of the banquet.

In invitation the Catholic Church extends is not to one portion of the banquet, not to one sacramental sharing, but to the whole, the fullness of communion in the Universal Church. That is the invitation. And without that understanding, you do not appreciate the Catholic viewpoint.

K.

Kurt,
You are right when you say that the Roman Catholic Church does not have a restrictive communion policy. Therefore, do not blame me when I say you are a relativist and your Church is that of relativism.

Have a nice day!

Rummy,

Thank you. I am proud to be part of a relativist church as you define it.

Best wishes for Christmas!

K.

Dear Rum Orthodox,

I like your feistiness, servant of Christ!

But I don't know about the relativism part so much.

An Orthodox bishop I once had lunch with (was that "communicatio in sacris?") told me I could approach Communion in his church anytime with his blessing. And if anyone who knew me said anything, I was to refer them to him.

I am not related to him, so I am not relative or relativist in connection with him.

He also told me that in Siberia, Roman Catholics were received to Communion in Orthodox Churches.

As for Kurt, he is a very nice fellow. Like you, he too is feisty.

I like him, even though he is NOT a monarchist.

But, if it is true, as has been said here, that he is a young man (wise beyond his years, to be sure!), then I think, given the rapid pace of his intellectual development, he may come around eventually . . .

I wish you, Rum Orthodox, a most blessed Christmas. And if you are as Orthodox as you say, I do hope you celebrate not according to the "new" Calendar, but according to the "true" Calendar . . .

Kidding, kidding . . . some of the time, anyway.

Alex

An historical note related to the two-way street of charity among Christians:

Time was when sincere Episcopalians with pan-Catholic leanings would lend their churches to immigrant Orthodox congregations.

From St Sava's Cathedral website:

Trinity Chapel's (in New York City) ties to the Eastern Orthodox Church extended back to March 1865, when the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox rite was celebrated for the first time in an Episcopalian church in America. The next day the New York Times and other papers covered not only the American Civil War, but also the liturgy with headlines reading; "A Novel Religious Service", "A Remarkable Event in History" and "Inauguration of the Russo-Greek Churches in America".

Coincidence/providence: Trinity Chapel, once a chapel-of-ease for Wall Street's Trinity Church meant to serve parishioners in 'upper New York', is now (since 1944) St Sava's Serbian Orthodox Cathedral.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Brother in Christ, Sergei!

A beautiful story!

Our St Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church was looking for an icon screen in its beginning stages of development.

It just so happened that the Anglican Sisters of St John (whose Mother Superior, Hannah Coomes, was declared a Servant of God in Anglican fashion and there is a Byzantine icon of her in their chapel now)had a yard sale.

Among the items for sale? A portable icon screen . . .

Fr. Markos told them he would like it for his new Church. The Sisters said, "Fine, but there will be a price."

Father replied, "Of course, tell me what it is."

The Sisters said, "To have our Order commemorated by your Church as long as it exists."

This was years ago, they have a new iconostasis, but the original screen is in their upper chapel.

And they continue in their prayers for the Sisters.

As an aside, there is an RC hospital in London where the nuns daily say a Rosary for the soul of King Henry VIII.

He gave their order the original moneys to build it, and the only thing he asked in return was a daily rosary for his soul.

They continue to do that.

Believe it or not . . .

C Rizdvom Khrystovim, Sergey!

Alex

I have found that in most areas where class differences did not put the Eastern Orthodox and the Episcopalians on opposite sides of town, most Eastern Orthodox parishes were founded in Episcopal churches. The Greek parishes in Baltimore and Chicago, Brendan's St, Nicholas (Franklin & Eleanor worshipped upstairs while the Russians were downstairs), and several other NYC parishes, to name a few.

Wonderful example of ecumencial hospitallity.

K.

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Kurt,

I don't know if this is a contradiction in any way, but you are a person with a LOT of class!!

Merry Christmas!

Alex

I am torn two ways on female ministers. One part of me does not see merit in the proposition. The other part of me knew a wonderful religious woman that ministered and died young. My friends death was the first time I cried and her husband was at a loss. Then i recalled the meaning of the word Apostole ti Greek; "has seen the risen" and I thought didn't Mary M and the other mary discover the risen Lord?

Prayer with our Protestant Brother is an easy idea. Rather than focus on our few differences we should see that our Brothers share nearly all our faith with us! They to are children of the Lord and pray to our Jesus.

The blood of Christ changes the world.

Dear Alex,
You and whoever this Orthodox bishop should no better than to break the rules. The Orthodox Communion is a closed communion. As much as we would love to have you you must become chrismated(that's better than being re-baptized). Communion in the Orthodox Church is based upon four criteria- doctrine, morality, worship, and obedience. You and this Orthodox bishop are at fault for the lack of obedience and disregard for doctrine. There is no such thing as having a diversity of doctrines and obediences. I know situations like yours happen from time to time. Don't get me wrong I would love to accept at our communion but you must be chrismated and forget about communion with Rome. Of course you did the right thing by consulting this Orthodox bishop. However, this bishop is at fault. What's his name if you don't mind telling me?

I would love to see more Catholics entering Orthodoxy so we can use names like yours,Orthodox Catholic. But at this time there is no communion with Rome, and all non-Orthodox should refrain from receiving Communion in the Orthodox Church(the exceptions are but exceptions and should not be tampered with).

Also, I want to wish you a Merry Christmas and an Orthodox New Year.

Yours in Christ,
Rob

P.S. Merry Christmas to all of you people that post here.

Robert, canonically speaking of course you're right.

all non-Orthodox should refrain from receiving Communion in the Orthodox Church (the exceptions are but exceptions and should not be tampered with).

Yes, exceptions do exist, including (especially?) in your Middle Eastern ancestral home. It seems this Orthodox bishop, who has authority in such matters, was offering our good friend Alex such an exception. I will agree with you, however, Robert, that such arrangements should be kept quiet to avoid scandal.

http://oldworldrus.com

Hi Serge,
I think scandals can be blessings in disguises which tend to straigten out the corrupt & the careless. I am not from Syria or Lebanon where intercommunion happens. In Jordan, where I am originally from, I am not aware of intercommunions. I think the Christians there abide by the rules of their respective Churches. I may be wrong but I know the rules. The next time I go to Jordan I will do research and consult with the Bishops and priests under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Merry Christmas!!!

Dear Rob and Serge,

I only told you what the bishop said and I appreciated his candor.

However, and in all honesty, I would NEVER take him up on his offer.

From the Orthodox point of view, I'm a heretic.

From the Catholic point of view, he's a separated brother (an improvement on "schismatic" don't you think?).

But, frankly, that Orthodox bishop's emphasis on the use of honey, rather than vinegar, is something that I find entirely endearing about him.

No criticism, Rob, but I find your "convert you heretic approach" a bit, well, off-putting . . .

Perhaps you might want to wait with any plans you might have with respect to working in the outreach department of your jurisdiction?

I guess some of us are more strident than other in their approach.

Nevertheless, please be assured that this "heretic" would not dare approach the Mysteries in the Orthodox Church, even if invited to do so.

The bishop in question is a real cool guy, though. He looks a bit like Serge in that picture Serge shared with us. I don't want to get him in trouble and so I won't share his name. Let' forget this even happened.

He has such a serene look. His father, an Orthodox priest, was helped by Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky.

I won't write about this again, I promise. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(By the way, which Calendar do you go by? That way I'll know whether your REALLY Orthodox ! Kidding, kidding . . .)

Alex

[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Hi Alex,
Please take no offense to my post. You know me by now(I hope). Thank you for your honesty in regards to approaching the Mysteries in the Orthodox Church. I likewise do not approach the Catholic's when I am in their churches.

Being a heretic does not mean you are a bad person. Some early Church Father's were heretics (Origen & Arius). It's a decision in your case. If you chose to abide and to agree with the consensus within the Orthodox Church which unfortunately excludes Rome then there is no reason to be a heretic. My decision is Orthodoxy. Yours is Catholicism + Orthodoxy. You can counter by saying that you believe in Orthodoxy but as you know Orthodoxy is far from any sort of compromises with Catholicism & Uniatism.

If I had the time and I pray one day, I will become very involved with the Missions & Evangelism department. Do I scare you(LOL)?

Also, I currently do follow the New Calendar and when I am overseas I follow the Old Calendar. The Calendar is not an issue as it may be for others. The Calendar does not save. It's a spiritual guiding tool.

As far as praying with "outsiders" is concerned, I'm just grateful to have the opportunity to pray with anybody who is willing. I have a wonderful colleague, an African-American woman, mother of two, who is very active in her Evangelical church. When our colleague, Marilu, was hit by a car and killed down in North Carolina, we were all in shock. My colleague and I just stood in the aisle ourside our cubicles; we just touched hands together and prayed together quietly. We each know the other to be practicing Christians, and we took advantage of the fact that we could both pray together, quietly and in our sorrow. Our supervisor is a non-religious Jew; he'd have had no clue. But I found my 'sister in Christ' and we just wept and prayed together.

Prayer with outsiders? Is there really a question?

As for Eucharist, I have served at the sanctuary of a Greek Orthodox Church with a bunch of Orthodox and Catholic seminarians at Pascha. The celebrating priest communicated all of us, with tears in his eyes. I think he was overcome with the presence of 8 young men who were stepping forward to serve God's people. An exception? Certainly. Grace-giving? No question.

The priest's and bishop's mandate is to examine the souls of the baptized, to guide them on the path to Christ, the "Omega" point of human existence, and to do whatever is necessary for the betterment and salvation of any soul who comes into his presence. If he's doing his job, then the canonical stuff becomes less than secondary. The priest is first and foremost a spiritual father to any and all of the baptized. A lawyer? Don't think so.

Thank God for warm and loving "Fathers" who love all their baptized children and who sacrifice their time, talents and energy to reflect the love of Christ. No matter what jurisdiction. It's not a canonical thing, it's one priest caring for one individual person.

May the Lord bless all our priests; may He grant them peace and solace in their work and may He grant us many more who will work in His service.

Blessings!

There's a little something I posted on a thread started by Dr. John regarding a possible service opportunity that I think has something to add to this thread as well...in fact, I probably should've put it here rather than there...but since I'm at home and without my T3 internet connection, I will hope you read it there (since this computer is slooooow) and offer your thoughts either there or here...God bless!

In a similar vein, is it appropriate for a Protestant relative of mine, who occasionally attends Divine Liturgy with me, to make the sign of the Cross? Am I wrong to feel a bit uncomfortable when it occurs? Opinions?

Blessings,
Barbara

Hi, RusynGrl, welcome back!

In a similar vein, is it appropriate for a Protestant relative of mine, who occasionally attends Divine Liturgy with me, to make the sign of the Cross?

Of course! At the very least this person is a friend of the Church; at the most learning this act may bring this person into the Church!

http://oldworldrus.com