Keithg29, brick22, BensGal, Lady Byzantine, Eli Akim, Kirk, Jerzy, Rusyn53, Lou, evergreen, old orthodox, PresJuliana, Heracleides, Addai, Jablinka
3134 Registered Users |
|
19 registered
(Byzantine TX, stormshadow, JSMelkiteOrthodoxy, John K, Ung-Certez, carson daniel lauffer, Stephanos I, Katie g, Tim, Stephen Barrow, Ghosty, Chtec, Peter_B, Athanasius The L, theophan, Garajotsi, A Simple Sinner, Doubting Thomas, 1 invisible)
and 264 anonymous users online.
|
|
The Byzantine Forum also hosts these private forums:
The Deacon’s Door (for deacons and deacon
candidates and their wives), the Orthodox Christian
Studies Forum (for currently enrolled students only of the distance education programs
offered by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America) and
the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Clergy Forum
(for clergy, religious, and clergy wives of that Church). Contact an administrator for
access.
|
|
3134 Members
20 Forums
21730 Topics
283961 Posts
Max Online: 1087 @ 07/16/07 01:09 PM
|
|
|
#288042 - 05/05/08 04:14 AM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: AMM]
|
Serge Keleher
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 2937
Loc: Dublin
|
Communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians. One of the principle reasons is that communion is not an isolated sacrament, but linked to all the others.
Really? Might I suggest a visit to Damascus?
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288054 - 05/05/08 08:06 AM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Serge Keleher]
|
AMM
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 2504
Loc: PA
|
Communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians. One of the principle reasons is that communion is not an isolated sacrament, but linked to all the others. Really? Might I suggest a visit to Damascus? Fr. Serge
Christos Voskrese!
I have not been to Syria or Lebanon. What I do know is the dual communion proposal of the Melkites was rejected by both sides for what I think are well founded reasons. Ekonomia may well be exercised at the local level there however, which is true not only of the Melkites but of the Syriac Church. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch actually has a policy in print with the latter group. It has also been noted before that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada for a long time was fairly lax in this regard.
I'm am not going to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do in regards to communion. What I believe is that communion is unity of faith, and it is linked directly to the sacraments of initiation and repentance. Were somebody to tell me they believed what the Orthodox Church teaches, I would not suggest communion, I would repeat the same advice given by Fr. John Matusiak in the link I posted.
What I said earlier is I believe correct; communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians for the reasons I outlined above and most likely some others as well. There are at least three Orthodox priests who post here that I can think of, and any of them are free to step in and correct me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288055 - 05/05/08 08:09 AM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: AMM]
|
A Simple Sinner
Member
Registered: 04/18/07
Posts: 953
Loc: Ohio
|
What I have been saying all along is are we keeping the sheep from the cup of the blood of the Lord because the shepherds can read the fine print on the well? Do you think the fine print should restrict thirsty sheep during a drought? Do you think the sheep understand or care about the fine print? My wife was at an Episcopal church on Thursday. They offer communion to everyone, no questions asked.
All well and good. Are we comparing Catholic & Orthodox sacraments/mysteries (and their attendant theologies) to Episcopalianism? Where are you going with this one?
For all the possible Anglican theologies that can alternatively (and somewhat conflictingly) be held, as much lip service may be paid to a general concept of "the real presense" or as quick as some to point out that their copy of the BCP has an office of confession (which how many use? which is actually mandated when?) or as much effort is made to claim that their ministers are the same - no different no less - than priests of Catholic or Orthodox churches... Well the comparison seems to fall a bit short. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the idea that not having closed communion in the sense we are talking about here is not exactly one quick short step away from just adopting an Anglican indifferentist status or an attempt at "comprehensiveness" as they might say.
Communion is restricted to Orthodox Christians. One of the principle reasons is that communion is not an isolated sacrament, but linked to all the others. http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=107&SID=3
Except for when it is not. For the longest time ACROD pastors were acting under the directive that Greek Catholics at their parishes with family were welcomed to recieve. Antiochian parishes heavily made of up Syrian & Lebanese families with many ties to Melkite, Maronite, or Oriental Orthodox family members frequently don't (or at least did not used to) withhold the chalice from Catholics...
NOTE: WE seem to have been writing at the same time. You hit the "send button" a minute or so before I did.
Edited by A Simple Sinner (05/05/08 08:10 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288057 - 05/05/08 08:35 AM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: AMM]
|
Mykhayl
Member
Registered: 02/16/08
Posts: 272
Loc: Pgh, PA USA
|
X. B!
C. I. X!
Excuse me. Are you saying unlike Western custom of directives coming from the top down in the East this particular decision here come from the local pastor to his territorial parish? If so I can agree. If you are saying the blood of the Lamb is restricted to jurisdictional affiliation not orthodox belief (keeping the fine print for the theologians) then we are discussing clubs not churches.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288058 - 05/05/08 08:40 AM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Mykhayl]
|
AMM
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 2504
Loc: PA
|
All well and good. Are we comparing Catholic & Orthodox sacraments/mysteries (and their attendant theologies) to Episcopalianism? Where are you going with this one?
Christ is Risen!
I think Mykhayl's post was hinting at the idea that the problem of conflicting conciliar traditions regarding the Filioque was a matter of wording and that it does not contribute to the overall scheme of salvation of individuals, and that priority should to go sharing of sacraments which does. Apologies if I misread him.
I was just counterposing with an example of people who believe that any form of dogma or individual disposition (including baptism itself) should never stand in the way of receiving communion, because to them receiving communion is simply the highest priority and trumps all other concerns. I was giving an extreme example, not comparing Catholics to Anglicans.
I myself believe that things like the Filioque, and the conciliar traditions of the church surrounding it, do form a core set of the churches teaching in which there must be agreement in order to have a basis of unified faith, and therefore communion. I may be the Grinch who stole communion for believing this, but it is still my belief.
Except for when it is not.
I fully acknowledge there are exceptions and local variance, but I don't think anyone would deny that the dispensation of Ekonomia (in this or any other matter) is by nature a deviation or relaxation of accepted or canonical norms. That is why Ekonomia exists though, because the church is a human institution.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288104 - 05/05/08 09:56 PM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Ray Kaliss]
|
Mykhayl
Member
Registered: 02/16/08
Posts: 272
Loc: Pgh, PA USA
|
X. B!
C. I. X!
Ray,
Are you alluding to the German Pope?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288128 - 05/06/08 10:07 AM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Mykhayl]
|
ByzBob
Junior Member
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 13
Loc: Pittsburgh
|
Guidelines for the Reception of Communion
These are the guidelines that alluded to in a previous post:
"Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)."
Does anyone know if this is particular to the United States? I would assume that the Vatican knows of the guidelines, and has not objected.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288147 - 05/06/08 03:04 PM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Serge Keleher]
|
Heracleides
Junior Member
Registered: 04/26/08
Posts: 2
Loc: Kona-Kai, Hawaii
|
Really? Might I suggest a visit to Damascus?
Fr. Serge
An oft-made claim - but one never substantiated. Have YOU visited Damascus and witnessed such inter-communion? If so: who, what, when and where? I ask so that such deplorable disregard in protecting the Mysteries may be brought to the Patriarch's attention and those involved chastised.
Heracleides
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288148 - 05/06/08 03:29 PM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Heracleides]
|
Mikey Stilts
Member
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 410
Loc: Baltimore, MD
|
I ask so that such deplorable disregard in protecting the Mysteries may be brought to the Patriarch's attention and those involved chastised.
Heracleides
You mean the same Patriarch who did this?:
Ekonomia may well be exercised at the local level there however, which is true not only of the Melkites but of the Syriac Church. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch actually has a policy in print with the latter group.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288170 - 05/06/08 11:06 PM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Mykhayl]
|
Ray Kaliss
Member
Registered: 11/22/04
Posts: 483
Loc: Meriden, CT
|
Are you alluding to the German Pope?
No.
The west considered itself the remains of the Holy Roman empire - which had broken apart. The Holy Roman emperor held sway over all kings (that was enforced by the Pope). The Pope appointed the emperor. But when the German king appointed himself as emperor - the system was now broken and the Pope had no way to enforce things. Kings were breaking away from the Pope.
From the Holy See's directory of Popes...
"At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes."
You see bishops did not elects Popes .. the Holy Roman emperor appointed the Pope and a church council (presided over by the emperor) ratified his appointment. This is the 'historical criteria'.
Which council was legitimate?? why the one presided over by the emperor ... of course!
With the emperor now gone - there was no way to tell which council was legitimate. The question of which council was legitimate - had no answer - because with out an emperor to support his chosen Pope (with force if necessary) the bishops could not agree.
Funny how the treat of prison or death for treason ... makes people agree 
-ray
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288171 - 05/06/08 11:47 PM
Re: Have We Received the Schism?
[Re: Mikey Stilts]
|
Heracleides
Junior Member
Registered: 04/26/08
Posts: 2
Loc: Kona-Kai, Hawaii
|
I ask so that such deplorable disregard in protecting the Mysteries may be brought to the Patriarch's attention and those involved chastised.
Heracleides
You mean the same Patriarch who did this?: Ekonomia may well be exercised at the local level there however, which is true not only of the Melkites but of the Syriac Church. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch actually has a policy in print with the latter group.
Yes - the very same Partiarch. Developing guidelines for possible future intercommunion not yet implemented is not the same as
Fr. Serge and others hinting at unsubstantiated claims of current intercommunion. Again - where's the evidence? Names, dates, & places please.
"The current patriarch is His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV (Hazim) of Antioch and all the East, elected in 1979. Patriarch Ignatius has been particularly active in strengthening ties with other Christian communions, but particularly with those whose roots are in Antiochian Orthodoxy. To this end, on July 22, 1991, he met with the Syrian ("Jacobite") Antiochian Patriarch, Ignatius Zakka I (Iwas), and the two patriarchs signed a document which called for "complete and mutual respect between the two churches." It also forbade the passing of faithful from one church to the other, envisaged joint meetings of the two Holy Synods when appropriate, and provided (as yet unrealized) guidelines for intercommunion of the faithful and even Eucharistic concelebration by the clergy of the two churches."
Source: http://www.antiochian.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=1
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Hieromonk Elias, Alice, Father Anthony, Irish Melkite
|
