commmunion in other christian religions

Unknown · July 2005

Well this is my first new topic that I have done so here it goes.

If someone was in a certain kind of christian religion and decides to take communion in another christian religion, is that bad? ???

For example: a person who is orthodox decides to take communion in a catholic church, is that bad? ???

spr418 · July 2005

i don't think so but i think if you believe in their believes that will be wrong and also we talked about that before in the youth corner a topic called different between orthodox and catholics you will probanbly find it in the first 3 pages!i hope that helped?

Unknown · July 2005

You have raised a number of issues and som eof these were briefly touched upon before some of the past conversations and discussions got heated.

The issues you have raised relate to:
1) Coptic Orthodox Church and other churches.
2) What did Jesus say about this.

Before we begin, I would like to share with you a short story that is perhaps relavant to this.
One Sunday afternoon I went along to Hyde Park Corner - a common place know for people to speak freely about any topic of their choice. People have a choice to either walk away for if the like to debate the topic in hand. In all cases, people have the upmost respect for one another; for their different views and opinions. On this Sunday I witnessed an American preacher dress as a cowboy speaking about Christianity - I stoped to liscen for I would to do with anything relating to Christ. His dress code was a bit odd for London but it may had been part of the act to attrack attention. The preacher was speaking about God. In the crowed there was a couple who would attick the preacher's words and they always refered to the Catholic church and how they believed it to be corrupt. At the end, I was fortunate enough to speak with the young couple. It was clear to me that the had lost faith in Christ because of a church that happened to be Catholic. I am not a Catholic, so I had no vested interest in their salvation. Nor did I attempt to convert them to Coptic Orthodoxy for the simple reason that these people needed God. After our discussion I am glad to say that they were clear to differnitate between the two.

Following this we may attempt to address your questions:

1) The Coptic Orthodox Church came after Jesus as did many churches. All churches have a vested interest in looking after their flock and maintainiing their faith. Churches do share a lot in common but they also have differences. Some of these differences include commuion and their rules. Are these rules set in stone? Are there any exceptions to the rule? Who is to decide these issues?

2) This brings me nicley onto Jesus. What did Jesus say about the Coptic Orthodox Church? What did he say about any other church? Did he make a split between his flock or did he seek the lost penny and the lost sheep? Did the church exist before Jesus? If Jesus taught us all we needed through his time and carried in the Bible, well why did he not speaj about different factions within his faith? And most importantly, what did Jesus say at the last supper? Did he make any rules specially for Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic, Protestant or any other section?

I for one believe, and it is my belief and not necessary the answer for evrybody, is that NOTHING should come between God and I - may it be a church, rules, priests, people, etc...........
I have taken communion at the Coptic Orthodox, Greek Orthodox (best organised and best vocal choir), Catholic and Protestant churches. Certainly most of these churches are glad to give me commuion and have had no objection for being Christined a Coptic Orthodox. Following on the same theme but without side stepping the convcersation I would also visit Jerusalim for I believe that no politics or man made rules should keep me away from my God.

I do and have made a clear distinction between Church and God. Many people perhaps never thought about it or believe there is no difference. Even when the Romans found nothing to condem Jesus, it was the people and the politics of the Jewish temple (Church equivalent) that attempted to even dictate the Lord himself.

In saying the above, I am sure you will also get a response that will differe from mine. Certainly the Coptic Orthodox Church veiw is very strict. However in saying this they do have exceptions. You may well get a statement from those boys in blue that monitor the web site that would almost certainly differe.

I would say to that your first port of call is to ask your priest, for it is he and he alone that would put you straight on the matter. Be very careful about the internet responses for they do contain some material that is factually inaccurate and we don't know published by who. So seeks advice from your priest and church.
If you decide that you will take commuion at different churches do it with respect to that church and its rules. I am sure that God came for us all (Copts and others) and would not harm you for accepting his body and blood - if in doubt look at the text in the Bible with reference to the last supper and tell me where it refers to Coptic/Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant/...................

Bless you.

Unknown · July 2005

Dear gurl-servant,

Communing with those outside of the Orthodox Church is considered a severe offence in the Orthodox Church; essentially you are automatically ex-communicated by the Church i.e. you cease to be Orthodox; the Church no longer recognises your “membership” and as such it refuses to allow you to partake of the Holy Eucharist offered upon her Altar, until you consult your priest or Bishop with regards to rectifying the matter. The reason for this is grounded upon our very Orthodox understanding of the Church and our Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist as an expression of the One True Orthodox faith. Only one who is ignorant regarding one or the other is prone to reduce the significance of the matter to nothing. Allow me to paste for you an answer regarding the Orthodox perspective in relation to this issue as it was written in an online article on the website of the British Orthodox Church (which used to be located at: www.uk-christian.net/newboc/97edit.shtml, but is however no longer available):

The late Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church expressed the Orthodox understanding of the issue:

"The eucharist ... is the sacrifice of thanksgiving offered up to God, by the Church, in Christ, on behalf of the whole creation. Since the Church is offering it to God, the question of hospitality does not arise at that point. As far as offering communion to those who are not in communion, we do not think of the eucharist as a kind of feast for the invited, to which the Church can hospitably invite some more people. It is the Church which offers itself to God through the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ ... The question of hospitality does not arise anywhere in that process. The Church is not withholding something from other people, which it then gives to them in a gesture of hospitality. In fact the term hospitality is quite offensive to us in this context, since it implies that those who do not do what some Western churches are now doing are being downright inhospitable ..."

At root the problem is ecclesial, not personal. We must not permit our individual feelings to cloud the deeper issues. Following the VIIth Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra in 1991, many members expressed the view that the Orthodox delegates had been "unjustifiably insisting upon abstinence from eucharistic communion". In a joint statement, the Orthodox participants explained that "it is a matter of unity in Faith and fundamental Orthodox ecclesiology, and not a question of a triumphalistic stance. For the Orthodox, the Eucharist is the supreme expression of unity and not a means towards unity." When the Apostle Paul encourages the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, he goes on to remind them:

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism".

Archbishop Eames’ requirement that communicants should be "baptised and practising members of any Christian tradition" can give us little assurance that we are able to share in "One Faith". Which are the doctrines where there is complete agreement between Christian traditions ? Trinitarian ? Christological ? Biblical ? Soteriological ? Ecclesiological ? Ministerial ? Sacramental ? We can certainly find many areas of convergence, but unless we adopt a severely reductionist approach, we cannot be said to share "One Faith". Gennadios Limouris, a Greek Orthodox theologian, rightly warns that by dissociating the witness of faith and the sacrament in the eucharistic action that is the hallmark of ecclesial unity, one tends either to devalue the witness of faith as an essential factor in unity or to devalue the sacramental action of the eucharist so that it loses its specific meaning which is essentially governed by the requirements of ecclesial unity:

"Some will say that, if we can pray together and share communal love in joint prayer which is the communication between brothers and sisters, why could we not communicate sacramentally together? However, one wonders in this case why people are seeking to make the eucharist, which is the sign and the pledge of eschatological unity, into a mere symbol of ecumenical good will ... The eucharist is not merely an individual act separate from the overall life in the church. It must be viewed in the wider setting of full, global and total communion which is the very nature of the church. Thinking members of the Orthodox Church cannot imagine a eucharist dissociated from the totality of the Orthodox Church, i.e. that one could receive the Body and Blood without fully accepting the community celebrating the mysteries and without total commitment to it, in the first place by faith."

Western Christians sometimes fail to understand that the relations between the different local Orthodox churches, whether within the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox families, is not "intercommunion". Within each family, whilst there are many differing customs and practices, there is full unity of faith and it is because of this that they enjoy full communion together. Western Christians often seek to establish communion first and trust that full unity will grow from that, but this is a concept totally alien to Orthodox ecclesiology:

"The Eucharist is the supreme expression of the unity of the Church and not a means towards Christian unity. Shared belief, shared ecclesial order, shared ecclesial identity are manifested and expressed in their fulness through the Eucharist. Given this understanding of the Eucharist there is only Eucharistic Communion, and there cannot be something called ‘Inter-communion’ since the term together with the practice it designates is a contradiction. To share the common cup while still maintaining fundamental differences in faith, order and ministry does not make sense to the Orthodox, because it violates a major element of the meaning and significant of the Eucharist."

The pain which this separation causes, the "experience of the cross of Christian division", is not something which should merely be suppressed or ignored, nor should it be thought of as something which is only experienced by the non-Orthodox:

"We genuinely suffer about the fact that sharing the chalice is not yet possible in our eucharistic striving and regret misunderstandings on this matter which may have occurred during our ecumenical pilgrimage in the WCC."

A more powerful expression of the same feelings is made by the Dean of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in New York:

"The issue has divided us and pains us. It is commonplace to speak of our divisions as we gather in prayer, mutual support, study and mission. At the point of the core ‘mystery’ we are truly scandalized. Our separation at the Lord’s table is a sign of our spiritual alienation and of its tragic aftermaths".

It is to be hoped that by remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition, the Orthodox Church may offer a valuable witness to other Christian communities to the extent that they will realise the priority of earnestly contending for the ‘faith which was once delivered unto the saints’ (Jude 3) "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ". (Ephesians IV: 13)

The Entirety of the late Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios’ article partially quoted above (Eucharistic Hospitality) can be found here: http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/English Articles/Euchasristic_Hospitality.html

An Oriental Orthodox theologian has great difficulty coming to terms with one of the new ecumenical slogans “Eucharistic Hospitality.” It does not certainly occur in the ancient tradition of the Church. Even in the western church, it is a new concept.

I am not quite sure about its meaning. I presume that it refers to the custom of the Roman Catholic Church which does not normally offer communion in the Holy Mass to non-Catholics, making a special dispensation during an ecumenical conference or other occasion and offering communion to those to whom it normally refuses communion. This could in theory be done also by other churches practising “closed communion”, for example, the Lutherans or the Orthodox.

The puzzling questions for an Oriental Orthodox theologian are two: (a) “Who is this generous host being so hospitable?” and (b) “What is the host offering and to whom?”

The Eucharist, as the Orthodox understand it is the Sacrifice of Thanksgiving offered up to God, by the Church, in Christ, on behalf of the whole creation. Since the Church is offering it to God, the question of hospitality does not arise at that point. As far as offering communion to those who are not in communion, we do not think of the Eucharist as a kind of feast for the invited, to which the Church can hospitably invite some more people. It is the Church which offers itself to God through the bread and the wine, and God in turn offers Himself to us through the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no hospitality question in administering the holy mysteries of the Church which the West calls sacraments.

The question of hospitality does not arise anywhere in that process. The Church is not with-holding something from other people, which it then gives to them in a gust of hospitality. In fact the term hospitality is quite offensive to us in this context, since it implies that those who do not do what some western churches are now doing are being downright inhospitable. I personally feel offended by that implication and therefore by the term “eucharistic hospitality”, which should be expunged from the ecumenical vocabulary for the sake of good relations.

The Orthodox have a principle of oikonomia or economy, which permits the canonical authorities to make exceptions to rules where such exception becomes pastorally necessary. But neither the term inter-communion nor the expression eucharistic hospitality make any theological sense to the Orthodox. In its place the Orthodox would use the terms Communion and Economy, which for them make better theological sense.

So far I do not know of any instance in which the Orthodox have invoked the principle of economy to give communion to non-Orthodox in ecumenical meetings. Theoretically this seems possible, if the pastoral need was felt to be compelling. The principle of economy is usually used in situations of emergency, and a conference does not seem to be a situation of emergency. Economy is used usually in relation to persons rather than to groups, though there may be instances in which the principle is extended to groups as well.

Since I have not yet seen a positive argument for the term eucharistic hospitality, I can only confess failure in coming to terms with it. I shall of course be grateful for any further enlightenment on the subject.

Peace.

Unknown · July 2005

Deano,

The Orthodox stance on this matter is quite elaborately and clearly laid down in my above post. This stance is contingent upon the Orthodox understanding of The One True Church and of the Holy Eucharist.

My question for you is simple; if you do not respect the Coptic Church’s authority, and do not personally adopt the faith that she has preserved and sustained, and which she preaches and lives, then WHY are you a Coptic Christian? On many occasions you have flaunted a sort of pride in being a Copt, yet clearly this is merely empty and hollow lip-service, for it seems you would rather disregard the Church and elevate your opposing personal opinion over and above the Holy Tradition of the Church which is no less than the very life of the Trinity.

If you reject the Church, then that would indeed be a loss, and I would be very sad for one, however, Orthodoxy represents the unadulterated fullness of truth – there is no compromise. You either accept the fullness of truth as experienced by the Church, or you are outside the Church.

This is not a personal attack on you, it is simply the harsh truth bluntly stated.

1) The Coptic Orthodox Church came after Jesus as did many churches. All churches have a vested interest in looking after their flock and maintainiing their faith.

The Coptic Church was established by the Apostle St Mark, who was succeeded in his Apostolic ministry by the clergy he appointed to preside over the See of Alexandria. The authority given by Christ to the Apostles was thus handed to the Church. The only vested interest that the Coptic Church has is in maintaining the One and True Orthodox Faith – the Apostolic and Patristic faith that she has preserved for little less than 2000 years, by the power of the Holy Spirit. All “other” Church’s i.e. the heteredox Church’s, are deviant sects founded upon heresy or schism; their vested interest is ungodly.

Some of these differences include commuion and their rules. Are these rules set in stone?

As thoroughly explained in my above post, our differences regarding the “rules” of communion, are based on our very understanding of the Eucharist itself. This understanding of the Eucharist is an eternal truth preserved, sustained, and testified to by the Church Tradition which the Apostles witnessed, experienced, received, and delivered both orally and textually to the Church that was established by them. The preservation and teaching of this Tradition was entrusted to the authority of the Bishops and Presbyters that were appointed by the Apostles to succeed them in the ministry.

St Clement of Rome, a Second Century Church Father, Bishop, and a disciple of the Apostles, affirmed the above truth in his letter to the Corinthians:

"The Apostles preached to us the Gospel received from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was God's Ambassador. Christ, in other words, comes with a message from God, and the Apostles with a message from Christ. Both these orderly arrangements, therefore, originate from the will of God. And so, after receiving their instructions and being fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth, equipped with the fullness of the Holy Spirit, to preach the good news that the Kingdom of God was close at hand. From land to land, accordingly, and from city to city they preached; and from among their earliest converts appointed men whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops and deacons for the future believers" (Chapter 42).

Are there any exceptions to the rule? Who is to decide these issues?

Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios’ says:

"The Orthodox have a principle of oikonomia or economy, which permits the canonical authorities to make exceptions to rules where such exception becomes pastorally necessary. But neither the term inter-communion nor the expression eucharistic hospitality make any theological sense to the Orthodox. In its place the Orthodox would use the terms Communion and Economy, which for them make better theological sense.

So far I do not know of any instance in which the Orthodox have invoked the principle of economy to give communion to non-Orthodox in ecumenical meetings. Theoretically this seems possible, if the pastoral need was felt to be compelling. The principle of economy is usually used in situations of emergency, and a conference does not seem to be a situation of emergency. Economy is used usually in relation to persons rather than to groups, though there may be instances in which the principle is extended to groups as well."

If there are extreme or special circumstances in which one may need to commune with another Church it is up to the Bishop to decide with regards to the facts and context of the circumstances and reasons in question, as far as I know.

This brings me nicley onto Jesus. What did Jesus say about the Coptic Orthodox Church? What did he say about any other church?

According to Orthodoxy; the Biblical text is not the sole authority – we are not Protestants; there is no fallacious conception of sola scriptura. The Biblical text is a written aspect of the Apostolic tradition which is integral to the ultimate Church Tradition. The power and authority of Tradition is grounded in the Apostolic and Patristic traditions of the Church which constitute a unified expression of the revelation of the Holy Trinity through Christ in the world, who possesses the ultimate and supreme authority which He exercises by His Holy Spirit and through the Apostles and their Successors.

Christ however, did condemn deviant sects through His Holy Apostles, who rebuked those who deviated from the gospel truth, and the traditions delievered to the Church.

If Jesus taught us all we needed through his time and carried in the Bible

The Bible is a written form of the Apostolic tradition, but it does not account for the fullness of truth as it is experienced in the Orthodox Tradition of the Church. According to St Basil (a great Saint of the Coptic Church, whose liturgy we perform weekly):

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term. (Basil, The Holy Spirit, 27:66).

You will find that even the Bible itself denies that it encompasses all the truth, for it is beyond being contained by any book (to paraphrase St John the Apostle). You can find good Biblical quotes and arguments in relation to this on the following Coptic Orthodox websites:

http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/holylecture5.pdf
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/holylecture1.pdf
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/holylecture2.pdf
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/holylecture3.pdf

I for one believe, and it is my belief and not necessary the answer for evrybody, is that NOTHING should come between God and I - may it be a church, rules, priests, people, etc...........

By communing at other Church’s due to your own personal views and self-attributed discretion and authority, you separate yourself from the One true Church, and hence ultimately from God. "No one can have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother” - St. Cyprian

Peace.

gurl-servant · July 2005

[quote author=Iqbal link=board=4;threadid=2173;start=0#msg33354 date=1122205872]
Dear gurl-servant,

Communing with those outside of the Orthodox Church is considered a severe offence in the Orthodox Church; essentially you are automatically ex-communicated by the Church i.e. you cease to be Orthodox; the Church no longer recognises your “membership” and as such it refuses to allow you to partake of the Holy Eucharist offered upon her Altar, until you consult your priest or Bishop with regards to rectifying the matter. The reason for this is grounded upon our very Orthodox understanding of the Church and our Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist as an expression of the One True Orthodox faith. Only one who is ignorant regarding one or the other is prone to reduce the significance of the matter to nothing. Allow me to paste for you an answer regarding the Orthodox perspective in relation to this issue as it was written in an online article on the website of the British Orthodox Church (which used to be located at: www.uk-christian.net/newboc/97edit.shtml, but is however no longer available):

I was just trying to make a point that we all believe in the same God and therfore our eucharist and the one in the catholic church both symbolize the same thing: Christ! So I don't understand the whole division >:(

I heard from one Bishop that "what is against God is against our religion" but I don't think that God would turn away one of his children for taking communion in another church that symbolizes the same thing!

No offence but we make our religion seem like the only christian religion which is obviously false. Catholics are our brothers and sisters and therefore I don't understand this whole seperation between both churchs.

P.S. I had deleted my account and re-registered.

Unknown · July 2005

gurl_servant,

It's irrelevant whether we "believe in the same God", because our conceptions of God are very different, and even our conceptions of the Eucharist are different also. Since the Eucharist is an expression of unity in faith, and since the Catholics have deviated from the fullness of truth we simply do not share communion with them period. My above posts thoroughly explained and justified this.

Peace.

Michael_Thoma · August 2005

Iqbal is correct, one should respect one's Church's rules. BUT that being said Mar Gregorious' Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church DOES share Communion with the Catholic Church.

Unknown · September 2005

Hello this is my 1st reply here.
Our Lord Jesus bless you all.

gurl_servant said:

No offence but we make our religion seem like the only christian religion which is obviously false. Catholics are our brothers and sisters and therefore I don't understand this whole seperation between both churchs.

I read all the topic threads, I do agree with the deep replies in such a serious topic (esp. by Iqbal) - no offense gurl_servant!

All humanity not just Catholics must be our brothers and sisters. Any and each Church says it's the only one right! I met people from one Catholic Church who further affirm they're the only Church to deserve the Kingdom! I also met people who changed to Orthodoxy.

It's a fact God is One and thus Jesus is One so the Church cannot be divided, we are all members (or cells) of His Body - do we humans deserve this honor as sinners except it's because of His Grace. He gave us Salvation, He willingly paid the price instead of us: nothing and nobody else would fulfill this issue but Him. Also, nobody can ever claim he is the true and sole Head of the Church but Our Lord Jesus Himself. Why do I repeat here notions we already believe?

Our Lord Jesus taught us on many occasions that not all who believe in Him or pray will be saved: it is obviously not enough. There are few conditions we should cover (not price but conditions).

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Mathew 7

Now please read all these verses in your Bible: Mathew 7 (the whole chapter) or here (& notice the side titles):
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&version=31
there are many other chapters and verses in the Bible that guide and warn us.

like: Luc 6:46; Luc 13:25; Galatians 1:6-9; Marc 3:23-35; Romans 8:22-27 and many more

It is not our job to judge others (lest we be judged) but we must leave these matters to our trusted legitimate Orthodox religious Leaders who think and act guided by the Holy Spirit. Churches are trying to unite and our Church has made a lot of efforts and progress in this area.

God has Saints in every Church and He knows who are to be in His flock.

My friendly advice for you is to ask God for guidance in this and please do not jump to quick conclusions whether positive or negative, do not either judge our Church or its torn members (the other Churches were once One Church and they split willingly mainly due to their leaders decisions) Satan's directions (directly or indirectly) caused these damaging human mistakes. This led to further mistakes with time and caused many 'new' divisions to appear in the last 500 years.

There is only one Church of course. Our Church is in fact BOTH catholic & orthodox in doctrine. Any new human-rooted additions to faith by other Churches are studied - and refused if conflicting with our legacy (which is both from the Bible and all Disciples chosen by our Lord Jesus Himself).

My friend beware of Satan's malicious deadly ways! I heard these kinds of ideas before: let's act now and remove all differences between us, why wait further if it's God's will? etc

Please do not leave the safest and most reliable Church even in the name of Love, but instead gather and drive others to it for both their benefit and your own!

gurl_servant: we may all find many more details to put here so I hope this conveys some nice solution to you !

with respects and Love, Lord bless you all.

(pray fro me)

swtenchantedmeh · September 2005

well den if u say there is no difference between the coptic orthdox eucharist and the catholic one [which is greatly differnt] y dont u juss take the Coptic orthodox one? ???

nyways the coptic orthodox orbana [holy bread] isnt made like teh catholic. The hamal [orbano chosen to be the body of christ] is made the night before. The people who make it, read and finish all teh psalms an pray continusly until the hamal is done. the catholic is just waffers.
the catholics store their eucharist if it isnt done, we coptic orthodox must finish it.

teh story of moses and how god passed by and killed the first born nd how jesus came nd he said to slaughter an unblemished lamp and to put its blood on teh door and u must finish it all. that represents the hamal we must finish it ALL. how cood u keep it. its wrong

--chipsy :P

minabdalla · September 2005

we are in communion w/ the armenaian church, ethiopian church, syrian church, church of Entiac, and some others but we are not in communion w/ greeks and catholics and other braches

rf_zachari · September 2005

As Iqbaal stated everybody, (and thanks again, sir...), that in partaking communion with these "churches," we actually ex-communicate ourselves from our Church...let us all remember that....

Oh by the way....if somebody wants to REALLY partake real Communion, he/she will, even if with a little effort, and there are a lot of examples....but the problem is we're lazy and wanting everything to come on a silver plate....

Finally, EVERYBODY are our brothers and sisters....and we have to love them ALL, but does that mean that we delve into their wrong stuff and forget the depth of my Mother Church, when saying "We all believe in Jesus Christ"? Think about it....

I advise anybody still thinking to read Effesus 4 (Affassos in Arabic)...specifically the part that says "Raab wa7ed imaan wa7ed ma3moodia wa7eda..." (Sorry, don't know it in english....try to understand this phrase in context of this thread....

IN HIS Name,

Rami Zachari

CopticPete · September 2005

Mainly the reason that we cant take communion in the catholic church is because we dont believe in the same doctrines, and also this effects how the korbana is made, like chipsy said. Catholic bread might as well be made in a factory, however the korbana of the oriental orthodox churches is different. It shows how much we really believe that this is christs body and blood, however, if it were really his body and blood, y do catholics send it through the mail?????????
that is a reallllly weird thing, because ur not even suppose to send money in the mail, let alone the body of our lord.
Hope the helped

-Pete

Michael_Thoma · September 2005

It shows how much we really believe that this is christs body and blood, however, if it were really his body and blood, y do catholics send it through the mail?????????
that is a reallllly weird thing, because ur not even suppose to send money in the mail, let alone the body of our lord.
Hope the helped

This is the wierdest thing I have ever heard. Why do Catholics send what through the mail?
Before the priest says the prayer over the Bread, it's just bread. No one sends the Consecrated Body of Christ in the mail - that's ridiculous. And yes the Latin Catholics use wafers - but they are thin wafers of bread, baked by nuns in a monastery.

Viv · November 2005

dear gurl_servent

The only reason we aren't allowed to take communion in the catholic church is because despite beliving in the same god, there area curtial differences between us and them. For example, the catholics belive that communion is only a simple of christ's body and blood, while we belive that the holy spirit actually decends on the communion making it christ's real body and blood. having communion in their church would symbolise a union that we are still trying to achieve. there 29 differences in our belifes, so until we reach an understanding with them, this is the way things r. tho I also find it hard to belive that jesus would turn away one of his children for having communion in another church. still if you're that unsure, try talking to a preist or something. :)

gmankbadi · November 2005

It is very interesting. There is only "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" ultimatley "one God" (Eph 4:4-6)

Yet there seems to be an array of trajectories to reaching that one God, thorugh the one faith.

My question then, is what precisely does it take to satisfy the expectations of that one true God, for yourself?

When you speak of taking the sacrement of the Holy Eucharist in a different church, you are actually pre-supposing the Sacramnet to be univocally defined (to mean the exact same) in both their church and ours.

Yet, beyond the dogmatical and theological apparent differneces,
what about the basic difference of how we approach the Holy Eucharist.

I define the "basic" differences as such;

a.) Time taken to prepare for the Holy Eucharist (ncluding prayers and hymns before and after)

b.) Quality of preperation for the Holy Eucharist

c.) An orthodox depiction of the Holy Eucharist (how close our understanding of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ is to what Christ defined it as)

If you cosider all three of these premises, you will find that very few churches have reached as close as a proximity to the respect deserved for Christ's Body and Blood as our Coptic Orthodox church has.

The real question, then, should not be is it wrong to take the Holy Eucharist in another church, but rather; IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO TAKE THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN ANOTHER CHURCH?

The moment you accept another means of taking the Body and Blood that is less orthodox then our Coptic Orthodox means, you have degraded the value of that sacrament, even if uintentionally.

To each his own. For "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:47 NIV)

Therefore, do not place yourself in the same position as those who are not familiar with the Orthodox teachings. Many will recieve the kingdom of God, but only those who have been faithful to what they are given. You are given a sacramental which gives the utmost respect and veracity to the Holy Body and Blood of Christ.

Thus, the moment you place that means as "optional" or and as "univicol" to less orthodox means you degrade the reverence for Our Lord's Sacrament. You're basically saying; "It doesn't matter to me, how I recieve the Holy Eucharist, just that I am recieving it and not something else."

Please be careful how you approach the Holy Eucharist. As it is written in Cor 11:27; "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

Although, you may have worthy intentions and even a "worthy" spirit, be sure you receive the Sacramnet by "worthy" means as well,..... lest you find yourself in a state of perdition.

God bless.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

commmunion in other christian religions

Comments