GC2006 : COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table
COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table
News Analysis
By Peter Toon
www.virtueonline.org
6/19/2006
On Monday morning at the 75th General Convention, the Committee on Liturgy and the Prayer Book heard witnesses speaking about the latest major innovation in the Episcopal Church but not yet an official doctrine of this Church. To appreciate what they said we need some background information.
In some cathedrals and churches within the Episcopal Church, this invitation is made: "Wherever you are on your spiritual journey, you are welcome at the table of the Lord." In others these words: "Whoever you are and wherever you find yourself in the journey of faith, come and receive the body and blood of Jesus."
This open invitation to all and sundry to share in "holy communion" is, in terms of the Episcopal rule book [Canon Law], a deliberate breaking of the rules. These require that to receive the Sacrament a person be baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Those who use the open invitation in the Eucharist believe that God's sacramental gifts of the body and blood of Jesus are for the whole world and not merely for church members. They are a means of evangelism calling outsiders into "the community of faith" by gracious hospitality offered by the community. Just as Jesus took food with all kinds of "outsiders" so his church offers spiritual food for all - be they insiders or outsiders.
There is, of course, opposition to this very major change in the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Way. Members of the Diocese of San Diego voiced this before the Committee.
To appreciate the reason for this opposition, we need to take a brief look at the relation of Baptism to Holy Communion in the Episcopal Church since the 1970s.
Before the 1970s the route to Holy Communion was usually: baptism as infant; instruction in the Faith as a young person; Confirmation by the Bishop, followed by first Communion. (This is still the usual route in most of the Anglican Communion.)
The 1979 Prayer Book changed this route by its declaration that, "Initiation is complete in Baptism." So infants were given Holy Communion and Confirmation ceased to be the "sacrament" that completed the dominical Sacrament of Baptism. Instead it became an optional service for entry into church membership. Canon Law was also changed to state that to be admitted to Holy Communion a person should be baptized.
The official position of the Episcopal Church is still that set forth in the 1979 Prayer Book and current Canon Law. And it is this position which the folks from San Diego wish to keep in place.
It is important to realize that, in the past, innovations were adopted by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (e.g., the ordination of women) after they had been already known in parts of the Church through direct action, a kind of "civil disobedience." It appears that more and more churches are adopting the open hospitality policy and thus a change in the rule-book will follow (in 2009?) the direction of change already in place.
It is also important to note that the Church has over the centuries regarded admittance to the Sacrament of the Holy Communion as limited by God's rules. In 1 Corinthians 10-11 the apostle Paul makes it very clear that only those who are baptized and living as the disciples of Jesus are proper recipients of the body and blood of the Lord. And this basic teaching is incorporated into the Exhortations of the various editions of the classic Book of Common Prayer since 1549. An open Table is from this perspective an act of defiance against the Lord of the Church, and it is a rejection of the common discipline of all branches of the Church of God from the earliest times to the present.
One thing more needs to be stated. The innovation of an Open Table does not mean that the Episcopal Church is likely, in the near future, to set aside the need for Baptism. And it will not do so at least for this reason: that in the Episcopal Baptismal Service is what is called "The Baptismal Covenant." This contract that the newly baptized person makes with God is absolutely central to the present, dominant Episcopal Religion for it is the often-mentioned and claimed basis for (a) its radical commitment to peace and justice, with the dignity of all persons whatever their "orientation"; and (b) its doctrine that in Baptism is contained in potential all ministries of the Church, lay and ordained. So anyone who is baptized and has signed on to the baptismal covenant is eligible for consideration for, and then entry into, all three Orders of the Ministry.
So the way of the future is most likely to be for a growing number - hospitality at the Open Table, baptismal classes while continuing to come to the Open Table, and then Baptism, signifying full commitment to the full religious, social and cultural agenda of the Episcopal Religion.
END
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| spbarrett | Posted: 2006/6/19 14:29 Updated: 2006/6/19 14:29 |
Just popping in   Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Hippie Valley, W. Mass. Posts: 17 |
 Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open TableLet's see if I get this right: some people want to just allow any one to walk off the street and be able to receive Communion, regardless of whether he or she knows what Communion is about, and why it is unlike any meal offered elsewhere. No standards, no miminal requirements of understanding, just come right up and sit at the table.
This is the Mass, not a regular serving at your neighborhood soup kitchen! What else could we expect from a convention run by fruitcakes who have no appreciation whatsoever for the Eucharistic Feast. It's not just a piece of bread and a sip of wine -- it's the Flesh and Blood of Our Lord! Why should the ECUSA even bother calling itself a "communion" any more? It's broken with Scripture, Tradition, trashed reason and now it's watering down even the barest essentials of requirements for receiving the Eucharist. These new powers-that-be are not only hetereosexually challenged (as I believe Canon Anderson aptly put it), the are also theologically, liturgically and spiritually-challenged! |
| Godislove | Posted: 2006/6/19 14:42 Updated: 2006/6/19 14:42 |
Home away from home   Joined: 2006/2/6 From: Posts: 221 |
God's Table Before the Offertory Sentence, my invitation is this: "This is God's house. And this is God's table. Whoever you are, wherever you come from, and wherever you are on your walk with God, you are welcome to join us for communion at God's table." You see, the altar is not mine or even the church's. It belongs to God. How presumptuous of me to run interference between God and someone who seeks God.
|
| ZachD | Posted: 2006/6/19 14:50 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:04 |
Home away from home  Joined: 2005/11/10 From: Posts: 1782 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Agreed spbarrett!
A warm welcome to VOL! I am concerned about the Pauline admonition regarding eating and drinking to one's own condemnation! Big news, that, however irrelavent to the revisionist destroyers! |
| ZachD | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:00 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:00 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/11/10 From: Posts: 1782 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Hmmm,
Pasteyboy is getting bolder! I wonder why? |
| KievCaves | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:01 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:01 |
Just can't stay away   Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Posts: 82 |
Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Many (including D Virtue) constantly refer to traditional Anglicanism with the adjective "orthodox." A previous poster on another thread voiced a long-in-coming objection to this ... and as a newly recieved Orthodox Christian who left ECUSA 3 years ago - I share this objection. The subject of this article serves as an excellent example as to why.
In Orthodox Christianty, Baptism and Chrismation are inseparable. Baptism is understood and celebrated as the person's participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. It is the person's Easter as he is born again into life eternal. Chrismation ("confirmation" in western Christianity) is the "sealing" of the new life in Christ by the life-creating Holy Spirit. In Chrismation the person receives the "seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit" in order to have the power to live the new life in the new humanity of Christ. In this sense, chrismation is the person's personal Pentecost just as baptism is his Easter. Typically the sacraments are administered together - to infants as well as adults. If the person has already been baptized in a Trinitarian tradition (in the name of Father-Son-Holy Spirit, i.e. for converts - only Chrismation is received for entry. All baptized/chrismated are then partakers in the Holy Communion - which is the real presence of Christ. Baptism is NOT the washing away of "origninal sin." Orthodoxy does not hold to the western (and later developed) theology that we inherit the guilt of Adam - rather we are born in brokeness/sinfulness into a fallen word as a result of the Fall. I understand, as a former Anglican, the comfort in applying the "orthodox" reference. But this is not correct, and as I moved into Orthodoxy, discovered that many Eastern Orthodox take exception to the application of "Orthodoxy" to mean "traditional" or "original" in regards to Anglican doctrine and practice. Please know however, this is not an anger or hostility thing with the Orthodox - and is merely offered in kindness and Christian witness. The Orthodox are severely pained in what has transpired within ECUSA. During the time I was discerning/studying/praying regarding my conversion - many expressed an incomprehension as to how a church (i.e. ECUSA) could hold councils in which established doctine/tradition/dogma/scripture could be "voted on" by the completely unqualified. Offered in the love of our Ascended Lord, Andy (formerly "amfreborg" - removed from forum past March) |
| ZachD | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:22 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:26 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/11/10 From: Posts: 1782 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Thanks, Andy, for your fine post and most welcome return to VOL.
Welcome! I will pray that others will follow your lead, leaving that decision, of course, respectfully up to them! Concerning orthodoxy (With thanks, too, for your charitableness): You will know well enough, that an 'orthodox' description is (in my understanding) an attempt at 'cure' in response to destructive influences plaguing our church from those who would seek to destroy the legacy of Christ, as left to us by the Apostles. The root meaning of 'orthodox' has been applied, in both instances, by historical denominations, as well as in our curent Anglican context. In some cases, 'orthodox' has become, rightfully, a proper noun, rather than an adjective. Both uses are quite correct, are they not? With thanks.. |
| CATHROMANG | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:22 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:22 |
Home away from home  Joined: 2005/10/6 From: Posts: 264 |
Re: God's Table Before the Offertory Sentence, my invitation is this: "This is God's house. And this is God's table. Whoever you are, wherever you come from, and wherever you are on your walk with God, you are welcome to join us for communion at God's table." You see, the altar is not mine or even the church's. It belongs to God. How presumptuous of me to run interference between God and someone who seeks God.
well, it's good to see the confederacy of dunces represented. If you were anywhere remotely close to being Christian you would know that in the history of the church (the Didache for one) it is stated that only those baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit may partake of the Communion. ("Do not give to the dogs that which is holy".) I would suggest the next time you are on your knees make it in front of an altar in prayer instead of what you are currently in front of. Hellbound pagans, every one. |
| Gander | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:26 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:26 |
Home away from home Joined: 2006/5/31 From: Less than 1 Earth diameter away Posts: 452 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Andy:
I'm glad that you and I share a love of orthodox Christianity. I do note with confusion on my part why Eastern Orthodoxy feels the need to own the term "orthodox" with a confusion equal to my observation that Roman Catholics need to own the term "catholic". I will to be catholic. I will to be orthodox. But I don't see Eastern Orthodoxy as the means and way to a catholic and orthodox christian faith any more than I see Roman Catholisism as a means and way. Relax, brother, we either stand beside Jesus Christ or we die by The Accuser. I trust that you and I stand together under grace. Don |
| ZachD | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:32 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:32 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/11/10 From: Posts: 1782 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy I will respectfully add to my prior comment:
Is there something very human about the pride in 'claiming a name' for one's own exclusive use? I include such correctly and appropriately used terms as 'catholic' rather than 'Catholic', as well as 'orthodox' rather than 'Orthodox'. |
| Siebental | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:33 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:33 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Pennsylvania Posts: 2 |
Re: God's Table "You see, the altar is not mine or even the church's. It belongs to God. How presumptuous of me to run interference between God and someone who seeks God."
MY preface to the offertory, particularly at Funerals and Weddings where there are likely many Christian backgrounds represented, is to say "This is not a denominational table; it is not a Lutheran table, a Catholic table, or a Brethren table but the table of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. All persons who have been Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit who believe that Jesus is present for the forgiveness of sins are most welcome to partake of His holy supper." That invitation leads to several inquiries about adult Baptism every year. |
| frcochran | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:42 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:42 |
Home away from home  Joined: 2004/6/28 From: Posts: 544 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy KievCaves,
Welcome to VOL. I assume your name is in reference to the catacombs under the Lavra (I am spelling phonetically). I must disagree with you concerning the "orthodox" reference. First, if people want to refer to themselves as "orthodox" as they understand the term, this is America after all, and we have the freedom to do such things. I am sorry that you do not like the terminology used on this blog. Furthermore, I submit that the Eastern Orthodox Church(es) do(es) not have a monopoly on the word "O/orthodox" and nor should they pretend to do so. Secondly, you and most people have distinguished between Big "O" Eastern Orthodoxy and little "o" Anglican traditionalists. I think people are intelligent enough to see and know the difference. Thirdly, this is a blog entitled "The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism." That "O" is capitalized only because it is in a title. Furthermore, it is part of the lexicon that people speak here on this blog. Fourthly, I appreciate your input, but quite frankly you no more practice Anglicanism but Orthodoxy. I would not dream of going to a Southern Baptist blog, for example, and correcting their terminology. It would be a litlle arrogant of me, don't you think? I hope I don't sound too harsh, and nothing I said was intended to hurt your feelings or anyone else's. Furthermore, I look forward to other posts by you. John+ |
| ZachD | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:43 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:45 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/11/10 From: Posts: 1782 |
Re: God's Table Siebental, that is a proper sentence of invitation.
|
| frcochran | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:46 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:46 |
Home away from home Joined: 2004/6/28 From: Posts: 544 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy "You see, the altar is not mine or even the church's. It belongs to God. How presumptuous of me to run interference between God and someone who seeks God."
Isn't it reasonable to believe that we are stewards of that table, tasked with many responsibilities to include the prevention of the desecration of that table (altar)? Of course any argument (as in the body of the article) based on something from that "anti-semite" Bible of ours is going to be lost on Steve. John+ |
| KievCaves | Posted: 2006/6/19 15:50 Updated: 2006/6/19 15:50 |
Just can't stay away Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Posts: 82 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Don -
As I indicated, my comments weren't given in any sense of hostility. One thing that was made VERY clear to me in my studies with my priest, sponsors and others in my Orthodox church is that NO ONE has any authority to judge who is saved or unsaved, in in any way be difinitive on anyone's (our even or own) salvation or place with God. That belong's to God only. Orthodoxy does however hold to the fullness of its tradition and doctines. It does not separate "Tradition-Reason-Scripture." Scripture and Tradition are seen as the same .. with tradition beeing the outgrowth/manifestation of Scrpiture. The holy Fathers and Councils clarified this for us ... we are built on their foundation. Where we esp. in the west get into trouble is with the "reason" aspect. The western mind - as reflected in Augustine and Aquinas - feels (and I am generalizing and do not mean to be purjorative) it must explain everything. Orthodoxy holds that with God there is mystery - mystery is OK - we are not meant and indeed incapable of understanding and explaining everything. Thats not the point - our sanctification in Christ is what we're called to. Scripture, tradition, the teachings of the Holy Fathers, sacraments, confession/repentance, disciplines (confession, Jesus prayer, akathists) all help us on the "ladder." Esp. due to its history in persecution (more Orthodox were martyred in Russia under the Bolshviks than during all Christian history prior), the Orthodox church is very aware of whats going on in the world, rise of radical Islam and the hostility of the increasing secular culture. They see Christiandom on the path to reunification as we will come together in support of each other and response. I will also add as a general offering - I can't tell all of you enough how free-ing it is to final let go of all the baggage of the ECUSA nonesense -- wherever God calls you -- immerse yourself in Christ! Andy |
| warmac9999 | Posted: 2006/6/19 16:15 Updated: 2006/6/19 16:15 |
Home away from home Joined: 2004/2/16 From: Posts: 1447 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table So far, this convention has condemned the Bible and rejected the uniqueness of Communion. These are far more serious to a Christian than the election of a woman bishop or the wordsmithing of a response to the Windsor report. One must conclude that the ecusa is no longer Christian, and is bent on the creation of something new based on the principles of radical feminism, homosexuality, and secular humanism. I can see that the next question for this new religion is does God exist, and, if so, in what way that fits our new principles.
This is the way liberals structure arguments. They define the boundaries and permit no alternatives. Thinking outside the box is not permitted and is punishable. If you stay in the ecusa, at least have the good sense to recognize that you are no longer a Christian - and stop hijacking the faith or using it as a cover for your nefarious activities. |
| ICXCNIKA | Posted: 2006/6/19 16:21 Updated: 2006/6/19 16:21 |
Just can't stay away  Joined: 2006/6/18 From: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 82 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Andy, welcome back to VOL. There is much to admire in the zeal of a convert, but, as an Orthodox priest once told me, they shouldn't write anything for several years! Why? Because they speak from their zeal, and not from understanding.
ZachD was correct in his posting concerning the use of the word 'orthodox', and PLEASE don't become pharisaic in your views and thoughts like so many Anglican converts to Rome or the East. God bless you on your journey. |
| Gander | Posted: 2006/6/19 16:23 Updated: 2006/6/19 16:23 |
Home away from home Joined: 2006/5/31 From: Less than 1 Earth diameter away Posts: 452 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy "The western mind - as reflected in Augustine and Aquinas - feels (and I am generalizing and do not mean to be purjorative) it must explain everything."
As I have had some experience with cults, I'd like to help you out a bit in your very good explanation. In cults the brilliant, charismatic, know-it-all leader supplys all answers to any question that anyone in the cult has. Cults need no faith save the faith in their leader's integrity (ill placed, yes). When you say, however, "Orthodoxy holds that with God there is mystery - mystery is OK - we are not meant and indeed incapable of understanding and explaining everything", you are really saying that you have faith in the self-revealed Creator God of Scripture. It is "faith", not in the false, but faith in the True that pleases God. (Hebrews - middle of the book) You are saying that you have faith. Amen! Don |
| DTaylor | Posted: 2006/6/19 16:30 Updated: 2006/6/19 16:30 |
Quite a regular   Joined: 2004/8/28 From: Orange County New York Posts: 68 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Like KievCaves I left ECUSA for the Orthodox Church over two years ago.
I don't have a problem with conservative Episcopalians using the term "orthodox" with a small "o" as long as the large "O" is reserved for Orthodox Christians. I still think that if there are enough consevatives in one's parish that those conservatives should inquire about forming a Western Rite Orthodox Mission with the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese. Then you could worship using the BCP of 1928 and never have to worry about modern politically correct changes....and then satrt using the big "O".  |
| Causidicus | Posted: 2006/6/19 16:33 Updated: 2006/6/19 16:33 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/7/3 From: Posts: 1065 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table This article and GIL's incredibly dense approach to communion perfectly reflect the change that has occurred over the last forty years. ECUSA has managed to morph from a Christian Church into a humanistic philosophy club, a sex club and a political action committee.
It has lost or rejected almost all of the fundamental signs and habits of Christian belief (they still pay homage to the concept of baptism but that will go soon as well) and retained the form for the purpose of continuing their con game. They should have formed a chess club. It would have been more of an intellectual challenge. |
| KievCaves | Posted: 2006/6/19 17:18 Updated: 2006/6/19 17:18 |
Just can't stay away Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Posts: 82 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Well - Best wishes in Christ to everyone, esp. those struggling and hurt.
Glory to Christ Andy |
| dandc | Posted: 2006/6/19 17:20 Updated: 2006/6/19 17:20 |
Just popping in Joined: 2004/1/24 From: Posts: 1 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Lets look at what Holy Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 10:21. "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."
|
| Zonaras | Posted: 2006/6/19 17:27 Updated: 2006/6/19 17:43 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/9/30 From: Posts: 212 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Andy, As a former member of the greek Archdiocese here in the US, I have felt like a voice crying in the Wilderness when I have noted that being Orthodox and Anglican is a contradiction in terms. You are right to say, "I understand, as a former Anglican, the comfort in applying the "orthodox" reference. But this is not correct, and as I moved into Orthodoxy, discovered that many Eastern Orthodox take exception to the application of "Orthodoxy" to mean "traditional" or "original" in regards to Anglican doctrine and practice."" You did not go far enough. You should have also noted that the EOC does not recognize any sacraments as valid (with the exception of Baptism unless you are a member of the Russian Church in Exile)except for her own.
I find all the beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth over the election of the PB fascinating because she has yet to enter office and show her true colors one way or other. I having a feeling that only a reincarnation of Cranmer (as i have noted elsewhere) would be acceptable to many on this blog. I am just happy that she is apparently a heterosexual female with a husband and a daughter and not a clone of Robinson with respect to her sexual orientation. I hope she is tends to the middle of the road, but time will tell. For me, her gender per se is not an issue, though I realize others consider it an abomination! They were probably, like Phyllis Schaffly (my age is showing), opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. |
| frcochran | Posted: 2006/6/19 17:29 Updated: 2006/6/19 17:29 |
Home away from home Joined: 2004/6/28 From: Posts: 544 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table There is no doubt that I believe orthodox Anglicans and the Orthodox have a great opportunity to come together for the purpose of common cause in the Kingdom of God.
That being said, there are a number of hurdles to overcome in the area of culture despite the option of Western Rite Orthodoxy. Case in point: we had a small Russian Orthodox group meeting here at my home parish of St. James. I won't say precisely what they did, because they are unable to defend themselves, but they mistreated a woman that goes here (she was formerly with them: ROCOR) because (according to them) their bishop told them to do so. Granted, their bad behaviour does not a bad Church make. But, in their case they mindlessly followed an ungodly admonition and they had to go. I believe that we had shown them the utmost in Christian charity. They paid us no rent and we opened the doors of the parish to them (once again rent free) at times when we were normally closed. But they brought with them this attitude that we were poor ignorant souls, unaware of the Gospel, and they had not a problem with letting us know this. I was shocked at the arrogance. The funniest thing is that I speak Russian (an Anglican priest) and their priest does not. I have concluded that, culturally, we are just simply too far apaprt at this time. The orthodox and the Orthodox should never forget that Christ came for the salvation of the entire world, He prayed that we might be one, and we are bound to this by His command. John+ |
| JRoss | Posted: 2006/6/19 18:23 Updated: 2006/6/19 18:23 |
Home away from home  Joined: 2004/3/15 From: New Jersey Posts: 895 |
Re: God's Table """Before the Offertory Sentence, my invitation is this: "This is God's house. And this is God's table. Whoever you are, wherever you come from, and wherever you are on your walk with God, you are welcome to join us for communion at God's table." You see, the altar is not mine or even the church's. It belongs to God. How presumptuous of me to run interference between God and someone who seeks God."""
How presumptious of you to be so careless with what is Holy. What you really mean is that you are desparete to for communicants. |
| Connie | Posted: 2006/6/19 19:15 Updated: 2006/6/19 19:15 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Posts: 5 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table When I had my very first contact with the devout Anglo-Catholic parish of which I have now been a member for 28 years, I was calling to ask if I could receive Holy Communion the next Sunday. I had been inactive for about 7 years in the Lutheran church in which I had grown up, and was experiencing a painful and repentant rebirth.
The very wise priest responded with a shocking answer, "No." He then went on to explain that the Church Catholic is not a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one likes and discard what one dislikes, nor is a place to come in and participate as the mood strikes one. Being in communion, means committing to being in a community. He further explained later that it's like going to a meal in a Kosher home - the dishes used are kept separate not to punish the visitor, but to refrain from imposing the obligations of the Old Covenant upon the visitor. This made a lot of sense to me and still does, even though I cannot express it as clearly here as he did then. (I know I'm opening another whole can of worms. While I'm at it, don't forget "orthodox Jews".) Also, the teachings I have received are that the Grace of the Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is absolute and will strengthen you on your path. If it is a path toward sin/evil (an unrepentant sinner), woe betide he that receives the sacrament unworthily. Further, the Mass is divided into 2 parts: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Table. Catechumens in the early Church were asked to leave after the Liturgy of the Word; only the initiated were invited to the mysteries of the Liturgy of the Table. To me, a wide open Table is just another symptom of "if it feels good, do it", make-it-up-as-you-go-along, anything-goes abomination that TEC has become. If one has not been baptized/initiated into the Body of Christ, what's the point of Holy Baptism? Why require anything? The Ten Commandments? Maybe, they're really just the Ten Suggestions. General Convention 2006 is the logical and foreseen culmination of 30+ years of trying to be all things to all people. I am definitely not an Episcopalian anymore. I remain an Anglican in search of a loving, faithful Primate as we go through this painful divorce. |
| Truthseekr | Posted: 2006/6/19 19:28 Updated: 2006/6/19 19:28 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/9/14 From: terra firma ................ ( just a pilgrim passing thru ) Posts: 784 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Hi Zonaras,
While trying to better understand alternatives to my current church, I found your post interesting. As I obviously do not understand the formal interrelationships (or lack there of) with the orthodox vs. the Orthodox vs. the non-liturgical sort of orthodox churches. It is not my intent to aggravate other Christians. Perhaps the words mean different things slightly in different parts of the world. Most people I know, tend to use small c catholic means all Christians big C Catholic means the Roman Catholic Church Likewise: small o orthodox means traditional, Christian beliefs of Father, Son- Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, big o Orthodox means traditional values plus being a liturgical Orthodox Church If you have time for some questions, please share your perspective with me: 1. What church do you attend, and are you a priest? 2. Is the Eastern Orthodox a stand alone denomination, or does Eastern refer to a number of the Orthodox churches from the more eastern part of the world? In the definitions of your church, who are the Orthodox Churches? (Such as the many churches that have Orthodox in their name… : Orthodox Church of Constantinople Church of Greece Serbian Orthodox Church Russian Orthodox & Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and there are others…) 3. Your post contained: Quote: You did not go far enough. You should have also noted that the EOC does not recognize any sacraments as valid (with the exception of Baptism unless you are a member of the Russian Church in Exile)except for her own. So, I am not totally clear what is meant by this stance. Are you saying that the only valid sacraments are in the Eastern (or Russian exile) Orthodox churches? Are you saying that all other human beings in this world, that have turned to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and that turned / repented from sin and try to live holy lives for God, that all of those sacraments / baptisms / confirmations / prayers / repentances / etc are for naught? The big Zero? That all those folks are destined for eternity away from Jesus Christ? It is ok to answer my questions either in this forum, or by a PM. Yours in Christ Jesus Truthseekr |
| DrJim | Posted: 2006/6/19 19:43 Updated: 2006/6/19 19:43 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/6/16 From: Delaware Posts: 8 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table I don't know how this discussion got off onto Orthodoxy when it is about everyone being able to receive commuion or not. The "Open Table" policy is used in the diocese that I am in with the approval and encouragement of the bishop. I challenged a priest using it, saying that the Canons require that one be baptized, and his explanation was that Jesus welcomed everyone. I countered with, HE DID NOT invite everyone at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharist. Only the Apostles were present for that. So, he asked the bishop, and the bishop said it was OK. The BIG problem that I have with this, is that it is SELECTIVE enforcement of the Canons. If you let that one slide, why not let them all slide.....why can't you just pick and choose which ones to enforce...in fact that is exactly what is happening...and it is not only sad, but disgusting.
Jim+ |
| KievCaves | Posted: 2006/6/19 20:21 Updated: 2006/6/19 21:51 |
Just can't stay away Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Posts: 82 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Dear Truthseekr - At risk of hopefully not causing more anger or consternation here, I could humbly offer the following at least as an example of my exerience in coming the Eastern Orthodoxy in regard to your questions. My perspective is from the Bulgarian Church, with some interaction with OCA (much more numerous - esp. in my area).
Its my understanding that in Eastern Orthodoxy (this is what my priest and other clergy have told me), the "ethnic" distinctions have no bearing on doctrine - i.e. a Bulgarian Orthodox is the same as Antiochain is the same as Greek etc. As a "Bulgarian Orthodox" I am free to transfer, worship, participate sacramentally with Greeks, Russians, OCA, Antiochians etc. Though I'm in a Bulgarian mission church, there is also an OCA church near me (founded by Russian immigrants in Akron) that while maintaining strong Russian flavor, speaks english and the people are very warm, friendly, outreach to the community etc. They are a joy, and our Bulgarian church shares a lot fellowship and joint worship. I don't think you can paint Orthodoxy with too wide a brush -- like any church there is the good and "bad" in terms of people's attitudes. We are all fallen. The EOC churches do not subscribe to shared altar - ie. EOC priests cannot officiate with non EOC priests. Priests and laity can worship eccumenically - but cannot take communion outside EOC. This is exactly the same as RCC and Missouri Synod Lutheran. In the one MSL church I visited, you had to sign your name in a pew book b4 communion so usher could see if you were MSL. I will not post anymore on this topic, but wanted to respond since you asked. |
| DTaylor | Posted: 2006/6/19 20:57 Updated: 2006/6/19 20:57 |
Quite a regular Joined: 2004/8/28 From: Orange County New York Posts: 68 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy I came to Orthodoxy through a Western Rite Mission that is part of the Atiochoan Archdiocese. We celebrated the Liturgy of St Gregory the Great (pre vatican II mass in English)
I now belong to an OCA Church (Orthodox Church in America). We use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysotom (Eastern Rite) and it is celebrated in English. While the majority of the parishoners are of a Russian or Slavic heritage, they have all made this English/Irishman feel at home. Some customs (and food at fellowship) are different, however I find it refreashing. The love of the worship and gospel are contagious and enlightening. |
| Truthseekr | Posted: 2006/6/19 21:34 Updated: 2006/6/19 21:34 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/9/14 From: terra firma ................ ( just a pilgrim passing thru ) Posts: 784 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Hi DrJim,
Sorry for the aggravation of casual sharing knowledge about potential alternatives to ecusa, but, it is very much on the mind nowadays. We quite often share knowledge here with an iron sharpens iron type encouragement… Back to the open table discussion. It is the responsibility of both the person and to some extent the Priest to enforce who takes communion. The Priest must not allow it if the person is in a notorious state of unrepentant sin or if the person is not baptized. The individual is responsible for being in a state of humble repentance of sin and discerning the meaning of the body and the blood prior to communion. Why? Is a very good question, and we rarely are told this truth. The communion is a blessing for the Christian that discerns the body and the blood. There is a real presence of Jesus Christ in the communion. It is far more that just doing this in memory of... How do we know there is a real Spiritual Power present? Because the Bible clearly describes the results of that Spiritual Power on the person that takes the communion in an unworthy manner... Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 1 Cor 11: 24-30 Hence, communion is Not a blessing for those that take the body and the blood in an unworthy manner. This can result in sickness and even death. I noticed that you have an interest in the healing ministry. Many of us also share that interest… So, here is an iron sharpens iron question. Yeah, it is off the thread subject, but I sure needed to hear it one time… Should this issue of the Lord’s body and blood be addressed prior to proceeding with a healing service? To search out un-forgiveness and sin that might restrict the healing prayer? Why? When seeking prayer for my healing, nobody ever asked me if I was taking the communion in a state of unrepentant sin, anger, or un-forgiveness towards another person… Someone finally took the time to teach me, eventually, about the above verse (and a few others!). After the shock and awe passed, I had to do some serious repenting for sinful actions, and some serious repenting for approaching the table of the Lord in an unworthy manner… Yours in Christ Jesus, Truthseekr |
| Zonaras | Posted: 2006/6/19 21:50 Updated: 2006/6/19 21:58 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/9/30 From: Posts: 212 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy I add my comments to those already expressed.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is what is left of the emperor Constantine's catholic church; the Church of Rome went into schism with it in 1054. Its nominal head is The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constaninople; his position is analagous to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The various churches you mention are analagous to Anglican provinces and the relationship they have with Constantinople is varied. The Church of Russia, for example, is autocephalous which meeans it is free-standing and similar to ECUSA. The thing that unites all the various churches is a so-called common core of beliefs. Like the Church of Rome and the Church of england, the EOC believes in the two natures of Christ. The Coptic Orthodox, the Jacobite Church, and the Armenian Apostolic Churches are called Oriental Orthodox or Monophysite; they are not in union with the EOC. They broke off from the EOC at the time of the Council of Chalcedon. The Orthodox Church holds the same belief that used to pervade the Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II. In other words, she is the only true church and only her sacraments are valid and licit. Although she on occasion recognizes the sacrament of trinitarian baptism done by the CoE or the RCC, all other sacraments are considered to be invalid and illicit. Belief in Jesus is not enough for salvation; belief in Jesus can only lead to slavation if you are Orthodox. The Russian Church in exile is also known as the Russian Church Outside Russia, sometimes known as the Karlotski synod. They believe that that are the only true Orthodox Church and consider all other churches (including all EOC churches) to be heretical. This branch of Orthodoxy does not even accept EOC baptism. |
| KievCaves | Posted: 2006/6/19 22:13 Updated: 2006/6/19 22:15 |
Just can't stay away Joined: 2006/6/19 From: Posts: 82 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy "The Russian Church in exile is also known as the Russian Church Outside Russia, sometimes known as the Karlotski synod. They believe that that are the only true Orthodox Church and consider all other churches (including all EOC churches) to be heretical. This branch of Orthodoxy does not even accept EOC baptism."
I think this is the group with whom FrCochran had negative dealings, for which I am very sorry. Bottomline -- go wherever God leads you - you will know when you are there and being truly fed. Kind blessings in Christ |
| MichaelA | Posted: 2006/6/19 23:13 Updated: 2006/6/19 23:15 |
Home away from home Joined: 2006/5/29 From: Posts: 869 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy I have attended Anglican, Baptist, Congregational and Pentecostal communion services in Australia. At every one, the invitation has been to the same effect: "If you are in good standing with a bible-believing church, and you know Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord, you are welcome to share this with us". Obviously the actual wording was different in each case. But that is true unity.
I also recall similar invitations at communion services at All Souls Langham Place (Anglican) and the Metropolitan Tabernacle (baptist) in London some years ago. At the last judgment, every person who has saving faith in Jesus will be welcomed into the kingdom. Every person who has rejected Jesus (and there is no middle ground) will be shut out of the kingdom. Our communion feasts are a fore-shadowing of what we will experience then. |
| Anonymous | Posted: 2006/6/20 4:58 Updated: 2006/6/20 4:58 |
|
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Well, if I had ever had any second thoughts about leaving ECUSA for a real Catholic Church (and I haven't!!) this thread would have resolved them!
God bless Benedict XVI!!! |
|
| Joe of the Mountain | Posted: 2006/6/20 12:52 Updated: 2006/6/20 12:52 |
Home away from home Joined: 2004/1/3 From: Posts: 3472 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Orthodox literally means "right thinking" or "straight thinking" and so the Orthodox Church has no monoploy on the adjective, since one may be straight thinking about any number of concepts.
|
| Zonaras | Posted: 2006/6/20 14:02 Updated: 2006/6/20 14:02 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/9/30 From: Posts: 212 |
Re: Example of why Anglicanism is not Orthodoxy Joe, I hate to say this, but your assertion won't change the issue or the fact that the EOC takes the position it does. Ya can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially since it has taken this position for at least the last 1000 years. Your comments sound like those of some one who refuses to swallow a bitter pill. Remember Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are a contradiction in terms. More importanly, much of what you believe to be acceptible as Orthodox would be unorthodox to the EOC. No offense made, just my 2 cents worth.
|
| DrJim | Posted: 2006/6/20 20:53 Updated: 2006/6/20 20:53 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/6/16 From: Delaware Posts: 8 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Truth Seeker:
In the world today, the single biggest obstacle to healing is unforgiveness! I have been a priest active in OSL for over 30 years, and I have found that to be single biggest obstacle. As to receiving communion unrepentent, that is on your head I guess. I never have a communion service that does not contain confession and absolution, same is true with a healing service. Dr Jim+ |
| Truthseekr | Posted: 2006/6/20 22:13 Updated: 2006/6/20 22:13 |
Home away from home Joined: 2005/9/14 From: terra firma ................ ( just a pilgrim passing thru ) Posts: 784 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Hi DrJim,
yeah, I agree about the unforgiveness being the biggest hinderance also. I do not understand the comment about my head. I was just trying to point out, that this sheep, and many others, prehaps did not fully understand the risk of taking the Lord's Supper, if our anger and bitterness is so great that we fall back into sin between the absolution and the feasting... I suspect that happens, to some extent, at most masses... Yours in Christ Jesus Truthseekr |
| DrJim | Posted: 2006/6/21 17:08 Updated: 2006/6/21 17:08 |
Just popping in Joined: 2006/6/16 From: Delaware Posts: 8 |
Re: COLUMBUS, OH: The Open Table Truthseeker,
Did not mean to confuse you, "on your head" is more or less an Old Testament expression which means that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. i.e., The PB called a special emergency session of both houses to deal with the Windsor response, because he did not "Want it on his head" that he is the PB that was responsible for the Epsicopal Church walking alone or breaking with the rest of the Anglican Communion. If you have a problem with "sinning" in between when you say the general confession and are absolved in the Communion Service, and when you actually receive communion, you are a pretty quick sinner. However, back to forgiveness, everyone has the opportunity at each Eucharist to acknowledge their sins and have them absolved. The big problem is, how many thousands of people NEVER RECEIVE their forgiveness.....and simply confess the same sins over and over. I'm sure our Lord gets pretty tired of hearing the same thing over and over, and is probably saying, "Enough already" I've forgiven those sins fifty times, when are you going to RECEIVE the forgiveness. Half of confession is receiving God's forgiveness! As they say in AA, "Let go and let God!" Peace, Dr Jim+ |
