Orthodox communion does not draw the onus upon it

[Andrew_Phillip]

**OK… why don’t these people take a look at the three letters between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Lutherans from a couple of hundred years ago?

This was a time when the newly formed Lutherans sought union with the Orthodox.

The Ecumenical Patriarch made the indisputable point that error piled upon error does not equal the truth. He pointed out that whilst Lutherans correctly sought to correct Rome - they did so imperfectly and without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the original Apostolic Church.

Error piled upon error does not equal the truth. The Eastern Orthodox still represent the original consensus truth of the early Church.**

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Perhaps you should start looking outside of Ireland for your source material.

 

[crazzeto]

I think many Protestants (and justly so) get upset at hearing non Protestants ‘lump them together’ by assuming that “all Protestants are sola Scripture” (they aren’t), or “all Protestants believe in a symbolic eucharist only” (they don’t). . .so I would think that they of all people would want to be aware of the truth regarding Catholics and Orthodox. That’s another reason I was confused that the topic seemed to be ignored.

Which form of Protestantism isn’t sola scriptura? Wasn’t it Luther who said Protistantism would fall like a house of cards if sola scriptura fell?

 

[crazzeto]

anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
But then one looks at the 39 Articles:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Sure I realize that you have a very wide variety of Anglicans, from the “traditionals” that consider them very Catholic like, to the diluted that they that they are the true Catholic Church and that Rome broke away from it, to the very Evangellical kinds.

But I think when evaluating any faith tradition, you need to look upon it’s foundation. That would be the 39 Articles for Anglicanism wouldn’t it?

Edit
A little OT, but for instance I remember debating an Aglican about the faiths views towards the Eucharist. This particular poster would have you beleive that all Anglicans accept real presence, and transubstantiation. Yet,

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

 

[The_Pilgrim]

“But I think when evaluating any faith tradition, you need to look upon it’s foundation. That would be the 39 Articles for Anglicanism wouldn’t it?”

I think you need to look at their present day positions. Any person taking an objective look at present day Episcopalians would be hard pressed to prove they are even Christian, let alone Catholic.

Lesbian and homosexual priests and Bishops, giving communion to the unbaptized, lesbian priest(esses) telling their parishioners that abortion is a blessing, priests that are also Muslim and/ or Buddhist or wiccan… It’s a mess over there.

And to top it off, here is a quote from the current “presiding Bishop,” Katherine Schori: “I simply refuse to hold the doctrine that there is no access to God except through Jesus. I personally reject the claim that Christianity has the truth and all other religions are in error.”

You can’t make up stuff like that.

 

[crazzeto]

“But I think when evaluating any faith tradition, you need to look upon it’s foundation. That would be the 39 Articles for Anglicanism wouldn’t it?”

I think you need to look at their present day positions. Any person taking an objective look at present day Episcopalians would be hard pressed to prove they are even Christian, let alone Catholic.

Lesbian and homosexual priests and Bishops, giving communion to the unbaptized, lesbian priest(esses) telling their parishioners that abortion is a blessing, priests that are also Muslim and/ or Buddhist or wiccan… It’s a mess over there.

And to top it off, here is a quote from the current “presiding Bishop,” Katherine Schori: “I simply refuse to hold the doctrine that there is no access to God except through Jesus. I personally reject the claim that Christianity has the truth and all other religions are in error.”

You can’t make up stuff like that.

I won’t deny that certain secorts of Anglicanism have really gone off the deep end completely, but then again certain other secorts haven’t. At least in my estimation by looking at the Articles you’re looking at the root of the faith. And by doing this, it’s clearly apparent that no matter how many “Anglo-Catholics” out there say they reject Sola Scriptura, and say the beleive in the real presense, and even go so far as to make the claim that every Anglican feels the same way, it just ain’t so.

Sola Scriptura is clearly endorced by the Articles, even as they do try to make some vege allowance for tradition, to try and keep up Catholic appearances and all. Their stated views on the Eucharist go further, transubstation and the real presense are out right called “superstitions”.

 

[Mickey]

Because we are the best kept secret of the West.

 

[The_Pilgrim]

At least in my estimation by looking at the Articles you’re looking at the root of the faith. And by doing this, it’s clearly apparent that no matter how many “Anglo-Catholics” out there say they reject Sola Scriptura, and say the beleive in the real presense, and even go so far as to make the claim that every Anglican feels the same way, it just ain’t so.

Sola Scriptura is clearly endorced by the Articles, even as they do try to make some vege allowance for tradition, to try and keep up Catholic appearances and all. Their stated views on the Eucharist go further, transubstation and the real presense are out right called “superstitions”.

You are right, but the group that today embraces SS is - of course - the evangelical part of the anglican communion; bot in the US and in Britain, and all of Africa.

The Book of Common Prayer in the US and England has removed the Articles from the Rule of Faith section, and relegated them to an “Historical Documents” section of the BCP. The 49 Articles are regarded by the liberals in TEC much as the Articles of Confederation are regarded in the USA today: an interesting document that helped to get us where we are, but no longer of any real significance.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

And many Protestants think that Orthodox are just another kind of Catholic.

The original poster brings up an important point. There is far greater prejudice against Catholics than agains the Orthodox.

As to the comment above, I guess I was always a bit more aware. Even as a youth, I was quite aware of the Orthodox churches, probably as a result of there being more than a few in my home town (Oakland, California), including the magnificent Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Ascension.

It should be noted that closed communion churches include the Lutheran Missouri Synod, though I hear they are lightening up on that at individual churches.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**For the first 1000 years of the Christian Church on this earth, the Eucharist was always celebrated with bread (leavened) AND wine. Always.

It is up to those who have accepted the Roman Bishoprics innovations to this to explain why… not the other way around.**

 

[crazzeto]

**For the first 1000 years of the Christian Church on this earth, the Eucharist was always celebrated with bread (leavened) AND wine. Always.

It is up to those who have accepted the Roman Bishoprics innovations to this to explain why… not the other way around.**

I’ll let the bible do the talking Andrew (again)

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

So what Paul is saying, if you either eat or drink unworthily, then you are guilty of both. So, while I do personally prefer partaking of both (and am considering attending Spanish mass when possible to do so, since they’re not afraid of some silly swine flu), scripture makes a very powerful case.

 

[josie_L]

**For the first 1000 years of the Christian Church on this earth, the Eucharist was always celebrated with bread (leavened) AND wine. Always.

It is up to those who have accepted the Roman Bishoprics innovations to this to explain why… not the other way around.**

That is not true Andrew Phillip, the Church in the West did use unleavened bread during the first millenia (and it still does). Moreover, there were some in the East who did not like this, and called those who used unleavened bread “azymites” (not sure I spelt this properly).

Edit: Your innovative historical analysis does not vibe with reality.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

****Most respectfully…

The scripture quoted by brother Crezzeto does not provide licence to the earthly Church to choose which part of the Holy Eucharist it will deliver to the faithful.

It merely states that those partking of the Eucharist (consisting of bread AND wine) have no right to tpartake of it (or it’s constituent parts) with an unworthy heart.

It does NOT say take your pick.

Perhaps the words of Our Lord at the last supper may assist you in this misunderstanding.

If His exhortation to “take and eat” and (not or) “take and drink” are not sufficient - then nothing I or the Eastern Orthodox Church have to say on the matter will be persuasive enough to have you change your ways… (although we are heartened by the news that some RC Churches are now again offering both the body AND the blood at Eucharist)…****

P.S. Leavened bread was the rule (even in the territory of the Roman Bishopric) until Schism… the Roman Bishops themselves partook of leavened bread in the Eucharist - even though some of their flock habitually did not. This was never an approved practice of the United Apostolic Church, however.

 

[crazzeto]

With respect to Anderw,

How can you explain being guilty of something which you did not partake? Are you suggesting that Easter Tradition superseeds the written, immutable tradition of the faith? The affirmed Word of God?

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

With respect to Anderw,

How can you explain being guilty of something which you did not partake? Are you suggesting that Easter Tradition superseeds the written, immutable tradition of the faith? The affirmed Word of God?

**OK…

When God says, honour thy parents, is he giving us licence to disrespect one - and not the other?

If we disrespect our Father, then in the eyes of God we disrespect our Parents given that they are one.

The Eucharist is one - perfect and immutable. It consists of the Body and the Blood of our Holy Lord Jesus. If we disrespect one of it’s parts, we disrespect both parts - or in other words, the Whole Holy Sacrifice of our Lord.

This scripture, NEVER gave licence to the earthly Church to offer one without the other.**

 

[crazzeto]

**OK…

When God says, honour thy parents, is he giving us licence to disrespect one - and not the other?

If we disrespect our Father, then in the eyes of God we disrespect our Parents given that they are one.

The Eucharist is one - perfect and immutable. It consists of the Body and the Blood of our Holy Lord Jesus. If we disrespect one of it’s parts, we disrespect both parts - or in other words, the Whole Holy Sacrifice of our Lord.

This scripture, NEVER gave licence to the earthly Church to offer one without the other.**

First of all, your first comparison to honor thy parents is completely and patently off the mark. Secondly, you’ve dodged answering the question, how can one be guilty of that which they did not partake?

The senario Paul presense is that the sinner did partake of the Eucharist, his statement is regardless of whether it was both species, or any one of the species, that sinner is still guilty of both species. How can you explain this unless the sinner in fact, did partake of both species when he accepted any one of them?

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

First of all, your first comparison to honor thy parents is completely and patently off the mark. Secondly, you’ve dodged answering the question, how can one be guilty of that which they did not partake?

The senario Paul presense is that the sinner did partake of the Eucharist, his statement is regardless of whether it was both species, or any one of the species, that sinner is still guilty of both species. How can you explain this unless the sinner in fact, did partake of both species when he accepted any one of them?

**Here is a direct explanation of what Paul said.

****The Eucharist is one.

There are no two species - as you and the Catholic Church refer to it. This is an heretical invention of the Roman Church, as described by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

You misinterpret what Paul says badly… he is actually saying that if a person takes either the body or the blood of Christ in vain - he sins. He is not condoning only offering one or the other. He himself always partook of both, as all of the Apostles did after Christs instructions.

This scripture is not licence, and never has been licence, for the earthly Church to offer only one or the other at Eucharist.

Christ was foretelling what was to come… his body and blood were sacrificed for the redemption of man - both (not either or).

Clearly, scripture tells us that His body was ressurrected three days after death, and his body ascended by his own Divinity into Heaven after 40 days on earth.

The blood he shed for us, was shed here and remained here on earth! The Holy Spirit, also remains here with us on Earth.

YOU dodge the actual question and issue at hand here - and engage in a tortured misinterpretation of a single scripture to justify a practice of the Roman Church which directly contradicts the specific scriptural instruction of Our Lord Jesus Christ.******

YOU answer me and the Eastern Orthodox this now: When and Why did the Roman Church change the way the Eucharist was offered in Churches to the faithful??? When, and Why did the Roman Church decide NOT to offer the faithful, the blood of Christ???

 

[crazzeto]

But in order to derive your opinion, you are ignoring the scripture and fall back upon the Eastern tradition.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

But in order to derive your opinion, you are ignoring the scripture and fall back upon the Eastern tradition.

**Sorry… it is the Roman Church which has ignored scripture, and established a doctrine which is at odds with the rest of the Christian Church. It was considered so then, as it is now.

The early Church did not do this, and Rome did this innovation against the protest of the other four Bishoprics of the united Church.

Rome has never adequately explained this heretical practice, and this has led to those protestants which arose from the Roman Church, reverting back to offering both body and blood just as in the original Church.**

Perhaps you should explain to all of us here, why Roman Catholic Priests, when offering the Eucharist partake of both body and blood, but fail to offer the blood to the faithful???

 

[crazzeto]

**Sorry… it is the Roman Church which has ignored scripture, and established a doctrine which is at odds with the rest of the Christian Church. It was considered so then, as it is now.

The early Church did not do this, and Rome did this innovation against the protest of the other four Bishoprics of the united Church.

Rome has never adequately explained this heretical practice, and this has led to those protestants which arose from the Roman Church, reverting back to offering both body and blood just as in the original Church.**

I sense a certain failure to consider scripture and a complete entity here, I’m sorry Andrew but you’ve failed to adiquatly explain the passage I’ve provided. Basically you keep falling back on Eastern tradition in some vein attempt to prove the Catholic Church “of Satan”.

The Catechism on the Eucharist: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Paragraph 1390

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Fully annotated