www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology outside their church

Correction from a previous post:

Sorry for replying to myself, but I noticed a couple of inadvertent
misstatements in my earlier post.


>Modern Orthodox Christians, considering the wealth of the spiritual gifts
>poured out on the early Christian community, would say they had more.

This sounds as if I'm saying that the early Church was as a community more
completely endued with the Holy Spirit than it is now. That's incorrect of
course. I meant to point out only that Gifts of the Spirit were more common
*in individuals* then than they are now. The Spirit that has the Church for
his earthly dwelling inhabits it as he always has since the events recorded
in Acts 2.

>The Divine Liturgy of St. James is extremely
>ancient, and I believe is attested to in the early second century.

As is the Liturgy of St. Mark. I did not intend to suggest that these
liturgies were not composed by the Apostles for whom they are named, as I
believe what the Church teaches on the matter. I only wanted to mention
that the literary tradition *traceable by modern scholarship* places them
in the second century with a high probability that they reflect an older
oral tradition or are a redaction of an earlier written one. That should be
early enough, and of sufficient scholarly weight, to make the point with
Bob's correspondent. Appeals to our Holy Tradition, which is naturally at
variance with modern scholarship on a number of points, are useless in my
experience when dealing with questions from the point of view we're seeing
here. See http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-62.htm for some
interesting (if slightly obsolete) scholarship. You can find a somewhat
awkward translation of the liturgies there too.

Broric,

To want to have communion at our altar and not be a member is like two people wanting to have sex but do it outside of marriage. Both the Eucharist and Marriage are sacraments. They are holy and sacred. For someone to want to partake of the altar (have the benefits of marriage) without committing himself to the church (bride) is to profane the sacrament. No one is excluded from joining themselves to the church, but by their own will, they exclude themselves. It is their choice, not the choice of the church.

Broric,

You write: Actually, you do not. At least, not according to their standards. By accepting papal leadership of the Church (in whatever capacity) you believe something they do not. By not being a part of Orthodoxy you do not believe something they do.

But, beyond that, the Church (whether Catholic or Orthodox) is charged with "dispensing the truth rightly" -- and this implies not sharing the sacraments with those who are not a part of the Body.

That's not an insult -- it's there to indicate that the citation is as the original. If there is a misspelling or grammatical error it simply shows that it was in the original and was not done by the one replying. This shows that the misspelling or grammatical error was not done to embarress or denigrate the original poster.

Actually your premise is false. One cannot be Catholic or Orthodox without baptism. As soon as one is baptized one is Catholic or Orthodox (assuming one was baptized in one of those two Churches). As an infant this process is relatively easy. As an adult, however, there will be a period of study and examination prior to admission to baptism. Also, both Catholic and Orthodox would disagree that a "sacred institution" can be created by a "christians' -- only God can create a "sacred institution." Christians defined the <i>structure</i>, but that's nto the same as creating the institution.

This, too, is incorrect. The writings of people like Justin the Martyr indicate a highly developed sense of structure and order in worship. By the time the Book of Revelation was written there was already firmly established liturgical worship in the form of the Liturgy of St. James and, probably, the Liturgy of St. Mark. Many aspects of the Liturgy of St. James are reflected in the disciription of heavenly worship found in Revelation. Veneration of Mary also traces its roots to the earliest times in the Church. Clarification and definition of Mary's role in salvation history was made at the Council of Ephesus where she was given the title "theotokas" -- God-bearer.

No, a quick glance through the Church Fathers would dispel this notion.

If they are in the "same boat" then they should go through the same process -- they should be baptized into the Church prior to the reception of the Mysteries. What do we pray before communion? We pray this because we know that we must share the mysteries only with those who are part of the Body of Christ. We do not "turn Jesus away" but, rather, invite those who seek Him into a deeper and more meaningful realtionship so that, in the fullness of time, they can participate in His divine life through the reception of the Mysteries.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Broric,

Can you provide us with some additional information regarding your spiritual journey? How long have you been a Byzantine Catholic? Are you a convert from another Christian denomination? I ask this because the way in which you are asking questions is more reflective of a fundamental Protestant Christian with an anti-Catholic / Orthodox agenda rather than that of someone who has accepted the teaching of the Byzantine Catholic Church. This may not be your intention but this is the way your posts read.

I am very confused by some of the things you have written. In your recent post you wrote:


This could not be further from the truth. Faith in Christ is a requirement for membership in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches! While it is possible to "go through the motions" and not really have faith, those who do this are not properly called Christians. Children are baptized on the faith of their parents, as were the Christians in apostolic times. We simply continue the tradition started by the apostles. If the children do not grow and accept Christ for themselves then they are not Christians.


You need to study your history! Veneration of Mary as a model Christian who said "Yes!" to God goes back to the earliest times. The Apostle Luke is credited with painting the first icon of her. The liturgy of that time was essentially the Jewish synagogue service, to which the Christian elements (the Eucharist) were added. As others have noted, there is plenty of documentary evidence of the liturgies from the first and second century. This is at least 150 years before the bishops finalized the Books that constitute the Bible. One can see the direct inheritance we still have from the Jews by studying either the Byzantine liturgy or the Roman Catholic Mass.


All those who put a saving faith in Christ and properly called "Christian". No one on this board has indicated otherwise. What we do say is that, while the Protestant Christian communities do witness Jesus Christ to their people, they do so incompletely because they are separated from the Church and do not have the full understanding of the Gospel that is found in the Church. Regarding the Eucharist, to partake of the Eucharist implies that you accept everything our Church teaches. Most Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence - for them it is only symbolic. Why would anyone want to partake of something that they don't believe in? We invite these people to become one with us in Christ, to study the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church and to be fully received into the Church.

Best wishes,

Administrator

[How come I, a Byzantine Cattholic, can't recieve communion at the local orthodox church. I believe in the same things they do. Except for the fact that I go to a byzantine catholic church.]

As a Byzantine Catholic you share the same faith as the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, you do not believe in the same things we do.
Some of your comments thus far are not those of a Byzantine Catholic. Especially concerning the Trinity and the veneration of the Theotokos. Which would not be made or believed by any Orthodox Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, or Roman Catholic. They are more the beliefs or comments one hears from a fundalmentalist Protestant.

Now, to answer your question regarding Communion. Break down the word and its meaning - Common Union. We do not have a 'common union' since we don't share the same faith. And, because of that, unfortunately are not united. Saint Paul tells us-

1 Corinthians 1:10

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.

So, as I already stated, unfortunately we do not 'speak the same things' nor are we 'perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.'

St Paul also tells us -

Watch those who create divisions and offensives in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them (Rom. 16:17)

"Avoid them" does not men 'permit them to receive Holy Communion in your churches."

In Tit. 3:10 he warns -

As for a factious [that is, one who wants tp split the church into factions-my insertion] after admonishing him once or twice, avoid him.

St Justin Martyr describes the Eucharist in about A.D. 155 as something -
of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth. (Apology 1:66)

OrthoMan

Dear Broric,

Your grammar is improving . . .

I would be interested to learn of our background, as the Administrator has suggested and as Orthoman has also noted.

I too have noticed that some of your views continue to have a decidedly Protestant character - not that there's anything wrong with that, unless, of course, you are Catholic or Orthodox now.

I think this would also help us understand where "you are coming from" in more ways than one . . .

Alex

Joseph Stalin was baptized orthodox and at one time in seminary for priesthood, he also was a murder of thousands of priests. So like I said you dont have to be a Christian to be a orhtodox or Catholic. As blessed or Saint Augustine said the church is full of saints and sinners. Many people are born into the institution but never become Christians. But its ok for them to take communion because they have a pass to be in the institution.As far as the FIRST GENERATION of Christians, who were jews, is they would consider are veneration as idoltry and their is no ACURATE HISTORICAL or ARCHILOGICAL evidence to prove otherwise. Dont worry I venerate daily.Also with the early liturgy, it is far from what we have today. As far as being one church to take communion,I have not been in one yet where people are divided on some issues. And as similar to the SACREMENT of MARRIAGE being similar, every marriage has divided issues but with the help of God the married couple can focus on working it out in love and still disagree. That is how churches shoulld be focusing on Christ and not my institution being better. Christ welcomes all to the table does he not or does He say, "sorry got to be in the right church." AS far as my back ground I am a voice crying out in the wilderness of the one holy catholic apostolic church.

So like I said you dont have to be a Christian to be a orhtodox or Catholic.

Your assertion doesn't hold water. Just as someone said above. In order to be either Orthodox or Catholic, one must be a Christian. I think you're confusing the attitudes and deeds of some and carrying it over to the Church. Stalin may have done what you have said (I'm shady on the history), but he didn't do so as a Christian, and most certainly not as an Orthodox Christian. The two go hand in hand.

Christ welcomes all to the table does he not or does He say, "sorry got to be in the right church."

He doesn't have to...where's the "right" table? :p

All kidding aside, Christ calls all to his Church. If you want to receive Communion in His Church and partake of His Body, then you should belong to His Body, the Church. I've seen the fruits of lax intercommunion practices...not good. The image of marriage/marital relations works. You have sex only with your spouse. It's not a very good situation when everyone shares everyone else's spouse. Want proof? Look at contemporary Western civilisation.

Also with the early liturgy, it is far from what we have today.

There is a Syrian legend which is told to this day. On Pentecost, the apostles received the Holy Spirit. On the following Monday, they consecrated Mooron (chrism). The following day (Tuesday), they consecrated an altar. And on Wednesday, Saint James, with the rest of the apostles, celebrated the first Liturgy (other than Our Lord's). When asked about the beautiful Liturgy and its prayers, James responded "We added not nor subtracted not from anything which Our Lord gave to us on the night before His Death." Hence, our Liturgy of Saint James is said to go back to the Last Supper, and not just James. Pious legend? Maybe. But I think it's safe to say that, minus vestments and architecture and icons and books and stuff, our liturgies were formed as we know them pretty early on, structure-wise.

I guess I will say it this way: there are many people who are going through the rituals we celibrate on sunday and on monday live a different life. There what you call false christians, you can fool the priest but you cant fool God. As Jesus said honoring God with their lips but their hearts are far from him. Many keep asking what is my church background ----keep guessing and calling me names and have pity on me! As of now I am an officail card member of the byzantine catholic church with orthodox beliefs. I would like to go to an orthodox church but I am looking for one that wont turn me away because of my card membership to the catholic church. I dont believe I have to renounce my beliefs, if I believe the same things. As far as rome is concerned I recognize the orginizational and politcal elements of the papacy. So as of now I am caught in the tug of war between the institutions --cant worship were I want because they will turn me away. If the fundametalist catholics would find out my secret ortho identity they wouldnt except me also.If I have the Holy Spirit in me, could this mean they turn him away to? Dont get me wrong, I believe the apostolic church is sacred. I am not a heritic, but I can exspress my views against istitutionalism.

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

I guess I will say it this way: there are many people who are going through the rituals we celibrate on sunday and on monday live a different life. There what you call false christians, you can fool the priest but you cant fool God.

Sadly, you are so right.

I think I better understand what you're trying to get at after reading your last post, Broric. Thanks for that.

Orthoman thank you for calling me a fundalmentalist Protestant. I would like to point out that you are more of one then me because you took scripture ot of context, so let me apologeticaly break down the word for you:

-

1 Corinthians 1:10

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.

you said
'

If you read the rest of the chapter the corinthans were saying I am baptized by paul and others were saying they were baptized by so and so and division was evident. I believe Paul would accuse you of the same thing. I am baptized orthodox and others say catholic. True unity is looking ahead to the greater value which is christ because Paul also said in this chapter that he did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel. Catholicity lies in JESUS CHRIST-

St Paul also tells us -

Watch those who create divisions and offensives in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them (Rom. 16:17)

YOU SAID NO it does not say that stop adding things to the text. its refering to people who cause divsion not people who want to focus together on unity. If my protestant brother wants to recieve the real presence in the eucharist, which some do, and not teach his beliefs in my church- WHY should I turn him away- he is seeking unity- we are one body not by the istitution rather united by the HOLY SPIRIT

In Tit. 3:10 he warns -

As for a factious [that is, one who wants tp split the church into factions-my insertion] after admonishing him once or twice, avoid him.

YOU SAID,
the fact remains that the first couple generations of christians were divided by so many issues and were mainly agreement on Jesus being Lord and the body and blood. It was not until further development in church structure that a general theological development was achieved and that took a couple of centuries. Read church history. I love Mary.

[ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

Dear Broric,

You are right in what you have written and I believe the current Catholic Magisterium would agree as well.

Alex

The following is a private email I received asking me to post it here as a reply to Boric -

Dear friend:

You seem to ask two questions in your argument. The
first is the determination of Orthodoxy retained in
the issue of grace. I would say (and I am not an
authority, so my judgment should be divided by your
nearest Orthodox priest) that the relation of one's
appearance to God determines grace in the individual.
Likeness in being to God is the key; the incarnation
of the Son of God gives us the nature we are to
follow. We are to become 'partakers of the Divine
Nature'.

So I ask you: how do the Western denominations, which
have separated themselves from Christ's Body through
their various innovations, claim union with God? It
cannot be through their confession of faith, since
they have altered what was given to the Church until
the end of time. Indeed, if God were to be found, it
would not be organically, but randomly. Understanding
the answer to your first question, however--since you
believe that the early Church was 'less Orthodox'--
requires an answer to the second.

The second question comes from a basic fault in your
eschatology. Orthodoxy does not believe in a
'development of doctrine', that the Church is somehow
'smarter' than She was before. You mention that the
liturgy was 'less than it became'. Your thinking is
faulty because you are removing the words of the
Fathers from their surrounding reality. You see that
the early Fathers only mention morning and evening
prayer, and see Orthodoxy today with Her seven-hour
liturgical cycle. You assume that the Fathers, then,
prayed less, and more freely. You forget that in both
the Temple worship and among the pagans, a daily cycle
of prayer was both common and enforced. People were
already praying all day long; they were already
fasting. All the Church had to do then, in this
environment, was direct these actions accordingly.

The 'increase' you refer to was an attempt to
compensate for the decrease in prayer among the people
which continues today. Orthodox do not, as I said,
believe in development of doctrine, but a development
of apostasy. You say that the first Christians had no
concept of the Trinity. I say the pagans, for
example, had a defined concept of triad, and this is
why the Fathers could employ pagan language so easily.
You say the early Church did not venerate the
Bogoriditsa. I say that the early Church contained
people who could recall meeting her; and that in that
environment were forms of icons, such as commemorative
coins, that assisted those who were not so blessed.

In other words, as time went on, as grace decreased in
the world, the Church employed physical reminders of
her reality, brick walls to keep the people from
falling into apostasy through fantasy and deviation
from the spiritual reality that the early Church
simply *lived* in. Those few men and women, who
fought for the name of the Lord, in whom grace was
apparent, would be venerated by the people as 'signs
of God' that would shrink in number. When that well
of grace dries, it will not be the end of Orthodoxy.

It will be the end of the world.

It would be that picture of Christ on a piece of wood
that would stop a sprint towards Gehenna; it would be
the smell of that incense that could awaken one's
headlong drive towards hell.

You may think the early Church did not have all the
'encrustments' of the Orthodox Church.... I urge you
to reconsider, not from the vantage point of your
world, but from the daily life of the early Church,
and you will soon understand that those pious
'encrustments' are our only preservation of Christ's
salvific message, and when there is no one left to
listen, judgment will be upon us all. May God
preserve us all!

A sinner.

As for the issue of inviting non-catholics/orthodox to communion, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say.

1400. "Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, 'have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.'[UR 22 # 3.] It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, 'when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.'[UR 22 # 3.]"


As has been said before, we have more than just the Bible to go on, we also have Church Tradition.


David

Dear Orthoman,

Thank you for sharing that wonderful post!

Yes, if by "development of doctrine" we mean that the Church somehow "adds on" things as time goes by, then, no, that does not obtain.

But certainly the Church's understanding of the Faith delivered once and for all to the Church by Christ through the Holy Spirit might be said to grow and develop, especially through the Councils as the Fathers defined what the Faith truly entails, as was mentioned with respect to the triad and Christian Triadology or Trinitarian theology.

We see this growth of understanding even in the New Testament with St Peter, for example, and his dream on the rooftop.

We also know that the old model of liturgical development where the Church was said to have moved from simpler forms of public prayer to more complex forms is completely not in keeping with the actual case.

In the original Greek of the Acts of the Apostles, the word "Leitourgoukon" is used to describe how the Apostles prayed very soon after the Ascension of Christ!

In Rome to this day, there is Anti-Christian graffiti from the time of the Apostles on ancient walls that copy early forms of Christian art, while people who knew the Apostles were still alive.

But I really think that Broric has explained further his intent with his earlier post, and I believe he would readily accept what is contained in this post.

Alex