Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Roman Catholic receiving communion at Orthodox Church?


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#161 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:11 AM

Also for those interested in trying to understand how the Orthodox church sees itself relations with other churches please see this post . It's a long post but well worth the effort to bring our understanding out of nebulous vagaries into something more clear.

In another post commenting on some of the struggles in the Russian church, Fr Raphael makes the comment "We know that any sinful action deprives us of grace to some extent. However at what point does this cast us right out of the Church? Or at what point can a sinful action debilitate grace to such an extent that we are part of some sort of 'phantom church'? In other words the church we are part of is formally part of the fullness of the Church but yet the concerted actions of its hierarchs, clergy and people deprive it of effective grace. This is like a man with only a partial blood flow. He is alive but not quite."

The reason precisely why we cannot view the Church wholly on eschatological principles is because human being are involved. I think when talking about inter church relations we have to give legitimate recognition that there comes a point when grace has been lost to such an extent that communion has been cut off physically. This represents something obviously that had already been happening on an internal level, for if true internal unity of belief and life exist, no tension or conflict ever would have arisen.

After this break has occurred how then do we see the struggle toward unity? Well we understand from history that for a person who had been cut off from the church to the point of being refused communion to come back into the church the only way for this was repentance. The person had to repent of false beliefs or practices or the participation in unlawful assembly, etc. that they had been involved in.

Repentance always brings about a restoration of grace. So we can turn around the quote above and say, "We know that repentance restores grace, However at what point does this restore us to full communion with the Church?"

What we cannot do is start with the apriori assumption that there is already some kind of substantial unity or oneness that exists on an eschatological level for the human race. Yes there is unity in the Trinity, but for the rest of mankind, the doctrine of the Church is very clear- the oneness of the human race was broken at the fall and we are still in the process of trying to regain it. Only when Christ becomes all in all will there be oneness on a universal level for the human race.

But all these false modern doctrines try to start with the human race having an eschatalogical unity which they believe already exists and which we just have to discover as individuals. (and which they believe they have discovered as opposed to all those ignorant people who are living still in divisions.)

Edited by Anna Stickles, 16 August 2012 - 11:44 AM.
added most of the post


#162 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:14 PM

Antonios, I don't know what to tell you . . .this is a discussion community that's what we do here. We don't come here for BBQ and Corn Hole. Some discussions are short, some are long conversations. Honestly Antonios, I don't know how I got sucked back in here, I promised myself I would not participate in this kind of unfruitful discussion anymore. It's like the Godfather part III . . . "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"

Anna, as I read your post above I wonder if it is hard for you to understand what Schuon is teaching. To me this is very clear and easy to understand, but based on other posts here saying things are hard to understand or are considered 'nebulous vagaries' -- I like that one :) -- I wonder if people have a hard time understanding what Schuon believes about transcending traditions and particularist views?

Again, maybe I assume too much, but to me this is very simple and plain as it speaks to the big picture.

I must say that your post is very influential to me and makes me stop dead in my tracks. Because I thought my views were my views but I am seeing them laid out in the teaching of Schuon in a way that is perfectly parallel to my conclusions. I have never read Schuon, and I don't think I have ever heard of him--although I probably did see his name on a list at one point when I was reading some from the school of the traditionalists. I just did a quick skim of his background as was surprised to see some things in common in our backgrounds, again an eye opener. I see he is German, I am not sure why but I seem to have a huge kinship (for the lack of a better word) with German thinkers, philosophers/theologians. I don't know why this is. Sometimes in the past, I have been reading a new author and I start to think 'this guy attended Tübingen' and then I find out later that that was correct. There's something about German thinkers that clicks with my genes.

I guess we have all been influenced by different people along the way. If I remember right for you it was MacDonald and Chambers at one point. For Owen it was Voegelin. For me I have borrowed the terms 'particularist' and 'particularism' from Moltmann, and I cross this with the terms 'fundamentalist' and 'fundamentalism' at times. I have been influenced by Bishop Zizioulas with his uses of the word 'transcending' . . . and I'll stop there.

But, your post makes me think. As shared above, I have never known what it is like 'to be fully within a living tradtion.' So I am pegged there. But, this is because I have always turned from all particularism (it's not a bad word) and the bad kind of fundamentalism. I cannot embrace this, I see what it produces in people and I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of 'spiritual training' OR that kind of 'spiritual communion.' That's a no brainer--there's no Love in that particular group, just mostly a hiding of the gnashing of teeth as much as possible, or knited brows and tight stomachs as expressions like 'nebulous vagaries' are typed on the screen. I have seen people, first hand, who were in a good place spiritually--growing steady an maturing well--enter and go through that kind spiritual training and they come out the other side walking and talking like their trainers and full of anxiety and anger and all dysfunction. This is what particularism/fundamentalism breeds and reproduces for itself. This is the opposite of Freedom in Christ but a shut up and sit down mentality. Thanks but no thanks. It's like Father Aiden said in the thread on fundamentalism, he said, "I know it when I see it." I know it when I see it too, and I turn from it everytime. I don't reject it in it's Christian manifestation, but I do flee from it like the plague.

You know there is a communion at churches that includes bread and wine. But, there is also a 'spiritual communion' of all believers (I think this is referred to in Unseen Warfare for one Orthodox source).

Whoever wants to limit this 'spiritual communion' to only the members of the Chalcedonian Orthodox churches, can easily turn from and reject all talk of transcending divisions and dismiss all talk of this order as being prideful delusions. But, whoever allows room for what is said about a 'spiritual communion' of all believers should also allow room for what I (and I guess Schuon is saying).

And, maybe this whole post just sounds like a "nebulous vagarie" or even the highly trained with great comprehension skills cannot understand what is said here at all. Maybe we are talking about what Father Raphael has said, about 'how we hear things.'

Maybe what is said here makes some folks uncomfortable and they don't want to hear what is said or do not what to see what is being said so they don't. I don't know but it is starting to matter less and less.

I still don't know how I got sucked back into this! It is a great cosmic irony that to preach this message is to not practice what one preaches. Yeah, I know Huh? :)






PS To say that 'Christian unity is an eschatological concept' is to say this tounge in cheek as Fr. Schmemann has originally said this tounge in cheek. It's funny but it's not.

Edited by Rick H., 16 August 2012 - 01:08 PM.


#163 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:13 PM

At the time that Fr Seraphim was attracted to Schuon, he too did not yet know what it meant to be fully part of a living Tradition. He had not yet entered the Church. But when he finally did enter fully into that Tradition he fell in love because he found not fundamentalism but true freedom and something very beautiful indeed and left Schuon behind, realizing that this too was just a chasing after the wind. But part of our conversion is to come to the realization that freedom in Christ is not freedom as our culture has taught us to understand this.

#164 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 August 2012 - 04:16 PM

I thought of a word picture that might differentiate between someone who is involved in tradition as a fundamentalist and one who is truly living in that tradition.

Coming into a tradition is like wading into the water. We can stop and start throwing water at ourselves and others thinking that this way of getting wet is real immersion or we can keep wading until the point where we have to learn to swim. Even then we can see that to throw water at someone, one has to stop swimming and lift oneself partly out of the water to make the throwing movement. Just as to throw water and to swim are incompatible movements, so too living in a tradition and throwing that tradition at others is also incompatible.

#165 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 August 2012 - 04:19 PM

I thought of a word picture that might differentiate between someone who is involved in tradition as a fundamentalist and one who is truly living in that tradition.

Coming into a tradition is like wading into the water. We can stop and start throwing water at ourselves and others thinking that this way of getting wet is real immersion or we can keep wading until the point where we have to learn to swim. Even then we can see that to throw water at someone, one has to stop swimming and lift oneself partly out of the water to make the throwing movement. Just as to throw water and to swim are incompatible movements, so too living in a tradition and throwing that tradition at others is also incompatible.



Huh? . . . :0)

#166 Phoebe K.

Phoebe K.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:38 PM

Only those baptised into the Orthodox faith are entitled to receive Holy Communion in an Orthodox church. Nobody else, not Roman Catholics, not Eastern Catholics, not non-Chalcedonians. Period. Church unity is through the Chalice, first and foremost.


There is the answer to whether people can receive in the Orthodox Church. It is relay rather simple and to be received into the church and Communion is through being a catacumin and being fromaly received into the church.

Why do we keep complicating things which are simple, the rules were written by the Holy fathers who were far closer to Christ than we are. All the descustion is doing is confusing those of us who are young in the faith.

Phoebe

#167 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 17 August 2012 - 03:30 PM

Dear Forum members,

I have just reviewed the recent posts in this thread and deleted a number that were personal in nature that had nothing to do with the content of the discussion. Please let us keep the discourse civil and without personal rancor and stick to the topic at hand rather than the personalities of those discussing the topic.

A suggestion, if you will. If you find that you are directly addressing a person (like using their name in a post or calling someone out specifically or using "you ..." a lot) then stop and consider whether or not your are contributing to the discussion of the topic or whether you are having a personal conversation with that other individual that has nothing really to do with the topic. If the former, then try revising your comments without the personal flavor and if the latter, then consider sending a PM or perhaps not commenting at all. That will help keep the discussion on topic.

Fr David Moser

#168 Sean Selig McMahon

Sean Selig McMahon

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:25 PM

Anyone see this?

http://www.washingto...b285_story.html

Two quotes which caught my eye:

“We appeal to our believers to ask for the forgiveness of wrongs, injustice and every evil committed against each other,” the document said. “We are certain that this is the first and the most important step toward rebuilding mutual trust, which is a necessary element of a lasting community and full reconciliation between people.”

"Kirill stressed that serving Christian religion obliged church leaders to promote the reconciliation."

In my earlier post, I mentioned the strain that the divisions in the church puts on lay-believers, who don't necessarily have a choice in the matter. But it is they who have the numbers, and if they are taught by their leaders to ignore or distrust other believers, then you will have generations of misunderstanding, which we have indeed already had.

Secondly, I do think Christian practice demands an open heart AND mind for reconciliation. I saw people talking about how Christ is the Church and the Church is Christ -- but I can't help but see this refer back to Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them." This to me is the communion of which the bread and wine are the outward symbol, in which there is the divine mystery of the presence and its strengthening spiritual power.

It is the gathering together in the name of Christ which makes the body. This is what I believe, to be clear.

Some can try to argue that doing something in Christ's name does not make it Christian, nor qualify it as communion, by citing Matt 7, "Lord lord, did we not prophesy in your name?"..."I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.' But I believe Jesus is talking about people who lack love.

I still say it is a lack of love which prevents the unity of those multiple organizations who claim to be Christian; original Christians; what have you.

#169 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:54 PM

I cannot understand upon what grounds and by what authority it can be said that it is a lack of love which prevents Christian unity. The Orthodox liturgy is offered for the whole world from love. It is from love that the Orthodox Church preserves the Apostolic faith so that all who will may share in it. All Christian confessions from the Roman Church to the most Protestant of sects have, in some degree, departed from the Apostolic faith by adding to it or subtracting from it.

"For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them." This to me is the communion of which the bread and wine are the outward symbol


I respectfully suggest that this is the wrong way round.

#170 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 17 August 2012 - 08:27 PM

"For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them." This to me is the communion of which the bread and wine are the outward symbol, in which there is the divine mystery of the presence and its strengthening spiritual power.

It is the gathering together in the name of Christ which makes the body. This is what I believe, to be clear.


What you believe then is not what the Orthodox Church teaches. the "communion of which the bread and wine are the outward symbol" is completely contrary to the Orthodox Faith in that first there is no "bread and wine" in communion, rather the elements of bread and wine become the Most Holy Body and Most Precious Blood of Christ. While there is indeed symbolism in the sacrament of Holy Communion, the symbolism is a far second to the actual communion of partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. Secondly the sacrament of Holy Communion is not about our "communion" with one another, but rather our communion and union with Christ. We are united with Him and only through Him are we united to one another. Thus by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ and entering thereby into Communion with Him, our communion with one another is created - not the other way round as you seem to suggest.

The Body does not create Christ, but the God/man Jesus Christ creates the Body.

Fr David Moser

#171 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:49 AM

Fr Raphael said

Until modern times this has never been seen as prayer of Christ for 'divided churches', since such an idea is a contradiction of what Christ Himself is actually saying here. For what He is pointing to is the reality of Himself, of His own unity with the Father, and the Father in Him, as the basis of the Church, which is exactly what the disciples will preach.

There is thus on our part nothing to produce or create as if the Church is our invention. Rather there is something that we need to do which means submitting ourselves to the already existing reality of the Church.

In other words the basis of the reality of the Church is its already existing unity in image of the Trinity, which we are enjoined to graft ourselves into.

Rick said

As I think about this, this really influences me. I have always read this prayer in the context of division (viz. Christ praying that there would not be division of the believers). But, I am seeing this differently now after reading father's words above. The emphasis here is unity and communion between the believers in a spiritual communion, in a mystery as the Trinity is One we are to be one. The emphasis is not on division.


You know there is a communion at churches that includes bread and wine. But, there is also a 'spiritual communion' of all believers (I think this is referred to in Unseen Warfare for one Orthodox source).

Whoever wants to limit this 'spiritual communion' to only the members of the Chalcedonian Orthodox churches, can easily turn from and reject all talk of transcending divisions and dismiss all talk of this order as being prideful delusions. But, whoever allows room for what is said about a 'spiritual communion' of all believers should also allow room for what I (and I guess Schuon is saying).


I want to address some of the misunderstanding that is going on here. What Fr Raphael is talking about and what is talked about in Unseen Warfare is spiritual communion with Christ, not the spiritual communion of all believers.

We know that the Trinity is in communion within itself. We know that those who have gone before us, who have died faithfully in Christ are in communion with the Trinity. We just celebrated the Dormition of the Theotokos, and is not this exactly what this feast teaches us - that she is now in spiritual and even bodily communion with Christ? and likewise we understand the saints are in communion with Christ and in this they are also in communion with each other. But what about us who are still here on earth?

Are we in communion with Christ or still struggling toward this? If not in communion with Christ, how then can we be in spiritual communion with each other? How can there be spiritual communion when we still get angry, are still greedy and demanding, don't trust one another, aren't of the same mind, etc? If we ignore the reality around us of the state of our soul and then postulate some kind of spiritual communion despite this we are just living in a fantasy. As far as I understand it spiritual communion has to do with a purified nous and certainly if we are suffering from these passions our nous is not yet purified.

So we have to look at this again. The Church exists first as the Trinity. Then, already submitted to this reality and engrafted in, are the saints. But we have to realize that each of us still here on earth are still struggling toward this spiritual communion. Certainly stating some kind of belief in Jesus Christ does not mean that we have yet actually achieved it. It's basically the same problem I stated in the post above. Something is assumed to be existing which does not yet exist.

All the teachings say that we start with physical submission and union with the Church and from here move into a more spiritual communion within her.

It is said, if you do not love your brother who you can see, how can you love God who you cannot see. And likewise if we cannot submit to the particulars we can see, how can we submit to that which we can't see?

Edited by Michael Stickles, 19 August 2012 - 01:17 PM.
Corrected formatting problem


#172 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:01 PM

Anna wrote in her conclusion:

And likewise if we cannot submit to the particulars we can see, how can we submit to that which we can't see?



As the word 'fantasy' was used above, we should give some thought to what is fantasy . . . what is of the imagination, and what exists as true Truth for the believer "in Christ," as used in St. Paul's teachings.


Sean wrote:

. . . Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them." This to me is the communion of which the bread and wine are the outward symbol, in which there is the divine mystery of the presence and its strengthening spiritual power.

It is the gathering together in the name of Christ which makes the body. This is what I believe, to be clear.


Aside from Sean's commentary here, is Matthew 18:20 fantasy? Or is this what we might call a true Truth, something that we believe in our hearts to Truth? I would think most of us here would say, 'of course it's a true Truth!"

If this is something we believe to be true, then we see a spiritual communion of all believers in Christ being taught in this verse. If one wants to move toward division(s) or go in the direction of who (as an individual) qualifies, based on their behavior, or who is a believer and who is not, that is fine.

But, as it relates to the topic of this thread the only other direction one could proceed further would be to try to provide definition/division (for particular groups) and make a move to the logic of the 'particulars,' somewhat as said above.

One could speak of the 'logic of Orthodoxy' or one could speak of the logic of other groups and their truth claims, and one could speak to the logic of those who seek to transcend divisions.

Father Rapahael has said above part of 'the Orthodox logic' involves how we hear things, or specifically in this case, how we hear scripture:

We do not separate Christ's words from the experience and reality of the Church itself. Instead we hear them as witnesses to and as emanating from the very reality of the Church. In other words when we hear this Gospel for example during the service, we don't understand it as pertaining to the 'Chalcedonian Orthodox Church' but rather as speaking from and pertaining to the Church which is a sole unified divine reality.



So as we apply what is said here about Orthodox logic to the words of Christ:

"For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them." Matt 18:20


We would not add words to this verse and make is say "For where two or three (Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonian) come together in my name, there I am with them."

But, we would 'hear' this verse as saying that. And, we would 'believe' in our hearts that this is what it means.

I don't think I am missing anything here with this logic.


Yes, what is 'fantasy' and what is 'truth' as it relates to our beliefs about a spiritual communion in Christ for all believers?
It appears that it depends on the logic of which particular group one chooses to subscribe to.

Just as there is a good kind of fundamentalism, a good kind of GroupThink, there is also a good kind of particularism. This kind of particularism breeds an abundance of unity and love and an inner koinonia of the Spirit, it is easy to see who one's brother or one's sister is when this kind of particularism is both preached and practiced. We have seen this even here on this forum in discussions about 'crocuses' in the past. The message, the words, of Christ above about His Presence and our spiritual communion with him as believers, the teachings of St. Paul about what it means to be "in-Christ,' and the kerygma of Christ as a whole are 'particularistic' messages and teachings; but they could not possibly be more catholic, more universal. Regardless of our logic (or how we choose to hear things), to make what is catholic/universal into something that is particular is to create something in the imagination and to live in a fantasy.

Edited by Rick H., 19 August 2012 - 12:49 PM.


#173 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:14 PM

I think to try to specify things about the EOC is to approach this from the wrong direction. This name is not the name that counts - however, to gather in Christ's name does mean that we gather as members of His Body, the Church. Not just as a group of individuals claiming to be "Christians" but living and believing however we want.

I agree that there is a good kind of particularism, because we are created in a particular Image, it is a universal image in that all mankind is created in this Image. The Church herself is the image of the Trinity's communion with mankind and our communion with each other. This communion is certainly something God created to be universal - for all men at all times. But we know also that much of what we see in the world around us does not conform to this Image and therefore must be rejected. Therefore we choose the particulars that are in conformity with this universal.

And so the Church does consist in particular moral commandments (to love God and our neighbor) and in particular beliefs and practices in order to preserve this image such as:
a belief that we partake of the real Body and Blood of Christ not just symbols,
a particular understanding of the Trinity
a particular piety geared toward teaching and nurturing within us the proper disposition needed to approach God and be accepted into His presence
etc.

But these particular things are also universal in as much as they reflect the fact that we are one race of people with one universal nature and that there is only One God.

#174 Fr Raphael Vereshack

Fr Raphael Vereshack

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,420 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Monastic Cleric

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:25 PM

Rick wrote:

Yes, what is 'fantasy' and what is 'truth' as it relates to our beliefs about a spiritual communion in Christ for all believers?
It appears that it depends on the logic of which particular group one chooses to subscribe to.


One thing to add here is that many of us have been deeply affected by recent trends in what 'truth' means. That includes Christians. For basically nowadays 'truth' is something overwhelmingly 'nice', that 'listens to' and 'respects what the other person is saying'.

Few recall anymore that the time of our grandparents and parents (well if we're of a certain age anyway) was a time when a genuine battle over truth occurred that took millions of lives. Truth from that perspective was not nice or open ended, but something which rocked ones whole reality (country, family, etc) and for which people died or were killed over.

Yes- to our ear this sounds almost like a description of the Middle Ages or maybe the Thirty Years War. And in a way what we have now is precisely the result of our grandparents and parents having tried to prevent what they went through ever occurring again. In other words if all of the rough edges of truth are rubbed off- so it is thought (almost to the point that this is an instinctual defensive reaction) - then we can live peacefuly and profitably together.

However, this current view of truth and manner of relating to it in ones' life is seen as manifestly false when looked at more fully. For if everyone's version of the truth is true, then obviously what contradicts your own version of the truth is also true, and what everyone believes to be true is only an individual hanging on to what is 'true' to us, and truth is only relative according to what you feel.

However the problem doesn't end there for this is only one aspect of the problem. More disturbingly 'open ended truth' also encounters the same set of self contradictions on the moral level. For if one of us adopts a set of principles conducive to what they believe neccesary or important to life, while another adopts contrary principles, by our own modern standards of open mindedness, we are obliged to accept this. In other words without some standard of truth outside of ourselves the risk of open endedness is a 'truth' that is destructive of people and society at their very essence.

But how is this any different outwardly, in a potential way, from what our grandparents faced from voracious and tempting 'truths', except that we now face the greater obstacle that the 'open minded' person never criticizes someone else's truth?

In other words Churchly exclusiveness is not at all the fearsome and awful thing that we often take it to be nowadays.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

#175 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:31 AM

I think I have just realized something . . . sometimes in these conversations it seems there are some means and methods that are characteristic of the two 'sides.'

I am speaking of a means and methods that come into play after the councils have been cited and after the Bible verses have been exchanged, after the time of talking about who said what, who is controversial, etc., basically after the storm has moved through.

One side seems to want to narrow the focus of the conversation to just one group like the OO or the RCC, or to just one person like the lady in the photo with the icon. And, one side seems to want to widen the focus and talk about the WCC or to talk about how to think absolutes imply antithesis is a thing of the past.

I think I have just noticed this for the first time today, but I also think I remember this now too in our other conversations we members have had in the past on Monachos. And, as I continue to think about this it is as if the group that would narrow the focus seems to be operating from a framework of 'hope' and is basically saying (like with the evocative photo of the runner above) this is where it 'begins!'; as opposed to the second group which seems to be operating from a framework of 'fear' and is basically asking where does it all 'end?'

And, this is just an observation, but again, and somewhat ironically, after the initial smoke clears . . . when there is actual conversation between the sides, it seems the side who would narrow the focus to something like the Ethiopian lady with the icon or one particular group like the OO seems to want to talk and think as much as possible in the concrete (in order to make their point). And, it seems like the side who would widen the conversation wants to work in the abstract (in order to make their point).

I am not just talking about the post above, but I must admit it was a catalyst for my observations.

Although I wonder how much what Father Raphael has shared above speaks to logic as much as it does a shift in the concept of truth? Behind the new concept of truth is something that seems to no longer apply which is a little formula from classical logic:

"A is A and if you A, it is not non-A"

I believe this is true, I believe what Father Raphael wrote is true as it relates to recent and present history.

But, as it relates to this conversation and to what it means to be "In-Christ" and in "The Body of Christ" this modern thinking and this modern shift in the concept of truth, when we consider such as the lady-runner above, or others we know in other particular groups, then "the logical affirmation A=A is a dead logic and a denial of being which is life."

So while I do subscribe to A is A in most situations in my life, the topic of this thread is where I agree that "A=A is a dead logic," and I think Fr. Raphael is saying Orthodox logic on this matter is "A=A."

I may be wrong, I have been before, but I think Father Raphael is saying the Orthodox logic has not suffered due to the somewhat recent change in the concept of truth, and the Orthodox logic is A=A. without exception.

#176 NicholasSpencer

NicholasSpencer

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:01 PM

Dear Kelil
I have been interested in your discussion. I am a Catholic Priest and very interested in Orthodoxy. In theory it might be possible in Catholic Law to receive in Orthodox Liturgies but I feel such a act when there is not comlete union between us is to pretend something exists when it does not. Of course I disagree with the Orthodox position on Roman Claims but what we need to be able to do is to talk together in love. In a world where most people do not believe it is harming the mission of Christ to fight together but we need to take things slowly and in God's good time union will come. I have received great kindness from many Orthodox. I disagree with their position in that I accept the claim of the Pope to be Vicar of Christ but we can still recognise that difference and pray together that we may be one.
Inter Communion should only come when we have genuine unity of faith and Communion which will be in God's time.
Every prayer
Fr. Nicholas




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users