.
Francisdesales
“Utopia� No, I’m not a utopian. I just understand unity in a different light. Unity is being one through our having the same life through our relationship to the same Lord through our connection to the same Spirit. This is the unity that is available to us in this life if we would only receive it. But only for those who don’t believe that they have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Christianity sees unity as being one in doctrine. And you are quite right when you say that doctrinal unity is impossible in this life. The existence of secular nations and Christian denominations pretty much proves that point.
Your last two sentences speaks to my comment on utopia,...
.
The practice of closed communion is ONLY in relation to those who are not in Christ, such as members of non-Christian religions. The Eucharist is an experience that is only intended for those who are in Christ. Everything in the Liturgy of the Word is intended to build us together and to Evangelize the seekers. And so also, the Eucharist is intended to build us together, not tear us apart through a practice of interdenominational closed communion.
I don't recall reading anything in Scriptures or the Fathers where everyone was allowed at the Table who had just heard the Word proclaimed. Justin the Martyr, c. 150 AD, explains only those who have been baptized can come forward to receive. Paul tells us to examine ourselves before we receive (Confession). And from the writings of John, Peter, Paul, and Jude, it appears that there were those "followers of Christ" who did not participate at the table due to lack of belief in what the community believed (such as "Jesus came in the flesh" vs the Gnostic Christians)
I agree, the Eucharist is intended for those in Christ, but what makes the Eucharist "closed communion"? Is it lack of belief in the Eucharist? Those who believe can receive. Why would someone receive what they think is a piece of bread when the people around them think it is GOD HIMSELF? I fail to understand why someone who is adamant on the essence of the Eucharist as being ordinary would bother to receive the Eucharist. It is false unity, since the Eucharist is supposed to be the heart and soul of our Christian walk.
.
From my reading of the early Church Fathers, that is what they believed also.
I disagree. Can you cite me where the Church Fathers allowed open communion - meaning everyone present could receive the Eucharist? There is simply nothing to point to that, James. Quite the opposite, even in the Scriptures (looking at the historical perspective and the first century it refers to).
.
The practice of interdenominational closed communion did not begin until after the early Councils separated Christianity into a denominational expression that included the denomination that is the source of the denominations that currently call themselves the East Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church,
There was no "East Orthodox Church" until after the Great Schism in the 11th century. EVEN NOW, Catholics allow Orthodox to receive Communion, although it is not the other way around. Of course, you are correct on the source of Protestantism in the West.
.
On another thread, I mentioned how many Eastern Orthodox claim that Catholicism and Protestantism are two sides of the same coin. I pointed out that the Orthodox don’t realize that the coin is three sided and includes the Eastern Orthodox Church. Upon further reflection, I have to modify that to the coin being a four sided coin that includes the Eastern Oriental Churches also.
LOL. I am not sure what you are trying to say with the reference to "two sides of the same coin"...
.
If the Protestant Movement had been tolerated by the Western Church of the 16th century as the Charismatic Movement has been tolerated by the Roman Catholic Church recently, there would be no Protestant denominations today.
Did the Catholic Charismatic movement challenge Ecumenical Counciliar dogmatic decisions? Luther went beyond the point of no return vs Eck when he refuted the infallible teachings of Ecumenical Councils, held by the Christian Churches for a millenium and a half.
.
The Protestant Movement would probably have become another religious Order that emphasized the Bible and living the Christian life. Something like the Benedictines who emphasized a prayer form that emphasizes the Psalms, from which comes the Divine Office as we know it today. But that is simply a what if scenario perhaps only appreciated by fellow Science Fiction fans. We have to live today with what actually occurred.
The Church is always looking to reform. But reform must be done within the Church. Not outside. Inventing a "new church" is not the solution. It is self-serving, it is not a sign of obedience to the Spirit. This may sound harsh, but the great reformers of the Church were humble and obedient, bringing change to the Church (within acceptable limits) through their prayers and their actions that spoke of their saintliness. Compare the life of St. Catherine of Siena or St. Bernard of Clairevaux to Luther or Calvin and you begin to see the difference of the center of gravity between the saintly reformer and one who would rather tear apart the Body then be found wrong.
When people "exude" Christ, they speak powerfully when they discuss issues of reform. When people are self-serving and proud, their "reform" is merely remaking God into their image. We know this by experience today, James.
.
The Catholic Church since Vatican II claims that all who believe and have been baptized are true Christians, including Protestants. The only reason Catholics practice closed communion in relation to Protestants is because of doctrinal differences. And most of Protestantism has the same practice. They didn’t pick up the practice in a vacuum.
True. It is biblical. Can you point to me where the Bible speaks of "open communion"? WHY EXACTLY were people baptized, James? Why go through that ritual that separated those "in the community" from those "of the world"?
.
Those Protestants who try to reject everything Catholic? I notice they don’t reject the practice of interdenominational closed communion. Maybe they don’t realize where the practice came from.
It would be interesting to speak of religion in general and note that Western religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity - doctrinal religions - do have that sense of closed communion, while Eastern religions such as Confucisism and Buddhism are more open, as if they were a philosophy. And that's my point. In the former, you are placing your beliefs in a specific, historical revelation given "by God" to a "man", whether Moses, Jesus, or Mohemmed. This is more than just a philosophy, take it or leave it, use what you like. It is "this way or you are outside". Perhaps that is something worthy of discussion on why that is.
.
I have opted for a different way. I presently attend a Roman Catholic Church with my wife who is a Roman Catholic. The Liturgy is currently very close to the pattern of meeting of the ekklesia. The Bible readings are synonymous with the teaching of the Apostles. The practice of the homily and Creed probably is a development from the Spiritual functions, called Spiritual gifts today.
In the Protestant Liturgy the sermon is emphasized. The idea of the sermon comes from the Catholic Homily. But I notice that those Protestants who reject everything Catholic haven’t rejected their practice of sermons.
Nevertheless, I can’t participate in the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, according to the law of the Roman Catholic Church, because I disagree with some of the canonized doctrines.
Did your pastor tell you that? That you couldn't receive after you explained the specifics of what you believe v what the Church teaches? Perhaps you are not so far off as you think.
.
During the Old Testament era, there are numerous examples wherein God allowed the people of God to have what they wanted, rather than destroy them outright because they refused to follow the revealed will of God. He is doing the same for us today. The will of God is unity in Christ through the Spirit of God. But if we are determined to have unity by doctrine, so be it. We are so often tyrants wanting our own will, even over the will of God.
Perhaps it is the will of God that doctrinal unity be maintained? Wouldn't you expect that, IF God "desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth"? Without doctrinal unity, how exactly do people come to the knowledge of the truth? If you put 3 Baptists in a room, you get 5 opinions. What sort of "truth" is that? Quite simply, it is not truth, it is relativism.
.
Maybe we will learn something from the suffering that our own will causes, and has caused over many centuries. Perhaps this time of Lent will help us to see how different we are from the meek and humble Son who subjected his own will to that of the Father, even to his own death. Let us praise God for the meek and humble Son, apart from whom, there would be no Lent and no Easter, and no Salvation through the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
I think we can accept that other people have different beliefs on interpreting Scriptures and still love them and accept them as brothers, even though we do not have full communion. Being in RCIA, I see this firsthand, see we must identify and explain this over and over again. The Church has made this idea institutional when it wrote "Lumen Gentium". Perhaps you should read that document from Vatican 2.
.
Sounds pretty speculative. Personally, I’m not smart enough to be involved in that kind of speculation. But some people do manage to make a decent living through that practice. Especially, before the “recessionâ€. I hope it is working out for you.
It can be speculative, it can be conservative. In any case, though, it takes more time, so I'm giving it up.
.
“Send your last question and I'll try to get to it this weekend. I'm busy Friday, but Sat-Sun should be lighter, since I won't be researching my next spread to buy.â€
I will try to send it as soon as possible. I think it is still saved in my email.
I was going to add something to Alabaster’s post on another thread because I know how hard it is for a Catholic to understand the Protestant idea of being born again. But I thought better of it. She already thinks that I have a problem with “book larninâ€. Besides it’s just plain rude to interrupt another’s conversation.
Fair enough.
Regards
