Its a vague statement to just say, the early Church had separate communities which “viewed” Jesus differently, and then assume both (or all) were orthodox and true.If there were multiple theologies and multiple NT canons early on, apparently some humanly visible, respected central authority must have pulled them together, and threw out the chaff. Doctrine and practice on Eucharist were brought to unity, in agreement with the Faith. Some things got kicked out. (by whom?) Mark and John were decreed to be different but both compatible with the Faith; Gospel of Thomas got ejected. (Ejected by whom?)
The various Ecumenical councils of the early Church obviously formed the bulk of the Biblical canon. But even to this day there are differences in opinion of what constitutes the New Testament even among the descendants of those involved in those councils with the Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Coptic churches having slightly different New Testament canons from those in the West and Eastern Orthodox Churches.Originally Posted by ComplineSanFran View Post
That’s quite inaccurate. Christians from the beginning had different communities, with different practices and different authorities, spread throughout the known world.
If there were multiple theologies and multiple NT canons early on, apparently some humanly visible, respected central authority must have pulled them together, and threw out the chaff. Doctrine and practice on Eucharist were brought to unity, in agreement with the Faith. Some things got kicked out. (by whom?) Mark and John were decreed to be different but both compatible with the Faith; Gospel of Thomas got ejected. (Ejected by whom?)
so how does Sola Scripture work when churches disagree about a canon?The various Ecumenical councils of the early Church obviously formed the bulk of the Biblical canon. But even to this day there are differences in opinion of what constitutes the New Testament even among the descendants of those involved in those councils with the Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Coptic churches having slightly different New Testament canons from those in the West and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
To me it looks like some authority convened and consulted councils; decided whose (name removed by moderator)ut should be sought (and whose (name removed by moderator)ut excluded); decided which councils and canons would not be accepted; and took the step of authorizing, or “canonizing” all or much of the (name removed by moderator)ut of the councils they happened to endorse. Hence our (tiny!) almost universal 27 book canon today, with slight variations you noted.The various Ecumenical councils of the early Church obviously formed the bulk of the Biblical canon.
I’ve often wondered that myself.so how does Sola Scripture work when churches disagree about a canon?
A few things to consider;Hey guys. So my boyfriend of one year is a Nondenominational Evangelical Free Christian, and he feels very discriminated against by the Catholic Church because he isn’t allowed to receive Communion. How do I explain to him in a gentle way why he can’t, and convince him he isn’t being “discriminated against”? Nothing I’ve tried has worked. The fact that we believe the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ is irrelevant to him. He thinks that he should be allowed to receive because he’s a Christian. I don’t know what to do or say anymore…
Then he receives. Excommunication from the RCC is not grounds to deny Eucharist in an Episcopal Church since they’re not excommunicated from the Episcopal Church. I mean technically any former Catholics would be subjects of a latae sententiae excommunication from the RCC would they not if they’d come into another denomination? Almost 40% of my current congregation, including myself, would be unable to receive if the ECUSA recognized Catholic excommunication.What happens if an excommunicated Catholic comes into your denomination and receives, because after all… he has been Baptized?
Thanks Padres1969. I kinda figured no denomination would just accept the Catholic censure, though the reason might be agreed with?Then he receives. Excommunication from the RCC is not grounds to deny Eucharist in an Episcopal Church since they’re not excommunicated from the Episcopal Church.
Maybe, but I meant one who was formally excommunicated for open, and unrepentant, sinfulfuness. I realize many reasons for a Catholic excommunication would not be the same, yet many would, right?. There are reasons which your denomination would deny a Baptized Christian to receive, correct?I mean technically any former Catholics would be subjects of a latae sententiae excommunication from the RCC would they not if they’d come into another denomination?
Wow!Almost 40% of my current congregation, including myself, would be unable to receive if the ECUSA recognized Catholic excommunication.
I’m sort of interested in what an answer to your last question might be, myself.Thanks Padres1969. I kinda figured no denomination would just accept the Catholic censure, though the reason might be agreed with?
Maybe, but I meant one who was formally excommunicated for open, and unrepentant, sinfulfuness. I realize many reasons for a Catholic excommunication would not be the same, yet many would, right?. There are reasons which your denomination would deny a Baptized Christian to receive, correct?
Wow!
No, I don’t think so. Are you conflating “in a state of mortal sin (and therefore unable to receive Eucharist until after Reconciliation)” with “excommunicated”? I would think that the 40% component of your congregation (by which I presume you mean people who had practiced in the Catholic Church at some point in their lives) would be in the former situation, not the latter.I mean technically any former Catholics would be subjects of a latae sententiae excommunication from the RCC would they not if they’d come into another denomination?
Does Catholic heresy not incur an automatic excommunication? My understanding was that it does. Hence my estimate of how many members of my parish would be so subject since they are Catholics who have joined another church openly.No, I don’t think so. Are you conflating “in a state of mortal sin (and therefore unable to receive Eucharist until after Reconciliation)” with “excommunicated”? I would think that the 40% component of your congregation (by which I presume you mean people who had practiced in the Catholic Church at some point in their lives) would be in the former situation, not the latter.
In theory yes, in practice no. In theory priests can withhold communion if they are aware a congregant in involved in a notoriously evil life until such time as the congregant changes their ways as well as notify their bishop. However in practice such action is very rarely taken.Thanks Padres1969. I kinda figured no denomination would just accept the Catholic censure, though the reason might be agreed with?
Maybe, but I meant one who was formally excommunicated for open, and unrepentant, sinfulfuness. I realize many reasons for a Catholic excommunication would not be the same, yet many would, right?. There are reasons which your denomination would deny a Baptized Christian to receive, correct?
Wow!
Heresy requires the Church to respond by contacting person, offering intermediate steps. Does the person know this is heresy? If they know, are they using a church position to promote it? Are their actions undermining the faith of others? Other remedies may be offered. Excommunication is a last resort. Again, the confessional is where this is normally assessed, and excommunications are lifted. This is normally confidential, rarely public, either for excommunications themselves, or the lifting of such.Does Catholic heresy not incur an automatic excommunication? My understanding was that it does. Hence my estimate of how many members of my parish would be so subject since they are Catholics who have joined another church openly.
I would wonder about possible non-moral reasons. For instance, suppose a baptized person disbelieves most everything the TEC believes about the Eucharist. Or suppose a person is not baptized…are they excluded?In theory yes, in practice no. In theory priests can withhold communion if they are aware a congregant in involved in a notoriously evil life until such time as the congregant changes their ways as well as notify their bishop. However in practice such action is very rarely taken.
Well considering the ECUSA, and most Anglican churches for that matter, have varying beliefs about the Eucharist and what it is, I doubt anyone would be withheld Eucharist for a member’s particular belief on it. Remember, Anglicans generally speaking, profess the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what form that presence takes is subject to varied belief. Some believe as Catholics do in Transubstantiation, some in Consubstantiation, some in Lutheran like Sacramental Union, some that it is simply a Mystery of Faith and the particulars aren’t important, some profess a Calvinist view of the Eucharist. And though I’ve yet to meet them, I’m sure there are some Anglicans that reject the Real Presence for a more memorialist view (not unlike how about 60% of Catholics take the memorialist view). So to excommunicate, or even deny Eucharist, for holding a varying belief would seem to be incompatible.I would wonder about possible non-moral reasons. For instance, suppose a baptized person disbelieves most everything the TEC believes about the Eucharist. Or suppose a person is not baptized…are they excluded?
That’s like putting the cart before the horse! God Bless, MemawWell considering the ECUSA, and most Anglican churches for that matter, have varying beliefs about the Eucharist and what it is, I doubt anyone would be withheld Eucharist for a member’s particular belief on it. Remember, Anglicans generally speaking, profess the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what form that presence takes is subject to varied belief. Some believe as Catholics do in Transubstantiation, some in Consubstantiation, some that it’s a Mystery of Faith and the particulars aren’t important, some profess a Calvinist view of the Eucharist. And though I’ve yet to meet them, I’m sure there are some Anglicans that reject the Real Presence for a more memorialist view (not unlike how about 60% of Catholics take the memorialist view). So to excommunicate, or even deny Eucharist, for holding a varying belief would seem to be incompatible.
As for the non-baptized, the official position of the ECUSA and most Anglican churches is to not offer Eucharist to the unbaptized. However there is some debate on that currently in some Anglican churches, and indeed some parishes individually will offer the open communion to the unbaptized as well in hopes they will come to know Christ better through receiving his presence, and may eventually choose to be baptized.
Honestly I’m inclined to agree in that I think baptism should generally come first (and indeed if I were in that position, ie: unbaptized but in a church that offers me Eucharist, I would still decline and either remain seated or if it’s offered receive a simple blessing instead). Maybe it’s my Catholic upbringing and/or because it’s the official position of my Church.That’s like putting the cart before the horse! God Bless, Memaw
Well considering the ECUSA, and most Anglican churches for that matter, have varying beliefs about the Eucharist and what it is, I doubt anyone would be withheld Eucharist for a member’s particular belief on it. Remember, Anglicans generally speaking, profess the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what form that presence takes is subject to varied belief. Some believe as Catholics do in Transubstantiation, some in Consubstantiation, some in Lutheran like Sacramental Union, some that it is simply a Mystery of Faith and the particulars aren’t important, some profess a Calvinist view of the Eucharist. And though I’ve yet to meet them, I’m sure there are some Anglicans that reject the Real Presence for a more memorialist view (not unlike how about 60% of Catholics take the memorialist view). So to excommunicate, or even deny Eucharist, for holding a varying belief would seem to be incompatible.
I find this approach very interesting. In speaking with Catholic friends and family, I’ve found few knew, or if they did, follow very strictly confession of mortal sins (missing Mass) before receiving. I rarely see anyone “sitting out” (other than my non Catholic husband). That leads me to think that it really is between them and God. If by receiving it brings them closer to Christ, strengthens them, isn’t that the goal? Isn’t that the act of love? If the church was serious about protecting them from themselves by receiving when they shouldn’t, shouldn’t the priest announce the guidelines at each Mass?
Thanks again Padres. So, the “evil life” has to be publicly known (or to the whole congregation)? Or what if only the Pastor knows? Can it be a false belief too? Or a lack of belief in an important Teaching in the faith?In theory yes, in practice no. In theory priests can withhold communion if they are aware a congregant in involved in a notoriously evil life until such time as the congregant changes their ways as well as notify their bishop.
Well, to be fair, I think it’s rare in the Catholic Parishes too. But not practicing an “open communion” might be considered related. But certainly not due to individuals and a personal sin they are unrepentive about.However in practice such action is very rarely taken.