[kosta50]

I know several Anglicans who routinely go to Catholic Mass and receive communion (no Anglican church nearby), and I also know one Greek Orthodox who attended Catholic Mass and received communion (again, no Orthodox church nearby). The priests is fully aware that neither of those people are Roman Catholic, yet they consistently receive Catholic communion. Both of them are wrong.

My point is -- all these people, including the Protestant minister from Norway, and the Catholic bishops/priests who advocate this type of stuff are relativizing the Church. The message behind this intercommunion (and there is a lot of that going on in the Middle East, which is another story) is that what our individual Churches teach is trivial and relative. Doesn't say much about the opinion these people have about their Churches, does it?

For, if the Church is only relative, and any other church is as the other, it is a statement of doubt that one's own Church teaches the truth. It is possible that they all teach the truth, but we don't agree on it and until such time that we find an agreement intercommunion is simply wrong. Shame on those believers who relativize their own Church, and even a greater shame on those bishops who allow such relativization because the Eucharist does not mean one and the same thing to all Churches.

How can a Catholic bishop allow a Protestant minister to sit next to him when the Protestant minister is not an Aposotlic minister?!!!? Where does he get his "authority" to participate in the liturgy as an ordained person? This is the kind of thing that makes the hair on my back stand up! If an Orthodox priest allowed such a charade, he should be and would be defrocked.

This is why the Orthodox Churches withdrew from these "ecumenical" charades in 2000 and this is why the Orthodox are compromising their own by being next to these clowns. Hopefully, the Orthodox will soon realize that a serious dialog is possible only with the other Apostolic Church, and limit the discussions only with Rome. The rest, well, they are not churches as far as I am concerned -- the Church was given to the Apostles. If there is no Apostolic succession, there is no Church. Last time I checked, not a single bishop joined Martin Luther in his rant, so the Lutheran church is not a valid church -- and Luther's authority, which was under a bishop, was made null and void when he was excommunicated.

[Kolokotronis]

I agree nearly 100% with everything you've written here Kosta. The Apostolic Succession is the sine qua non of valid sacraments and orders so far as I can see. I say nearly because, as I think I may have mentioned before, if I found myself on a Sunday in a place with no Orthodox Church, I would very readily and easily attend a Roman Catholic Mass...but I have not and would not approach for communion, even if, as I have been, individually invited by the priest. Were I near death, or reasonably believed myself near death and no Orthodox priest were available, I would ask a Roman Catholic priest to hear my confession, anoint me and give me the Eucharist. I would not ask any other Christian minister for the same, but I would ask for their prayers.

[phatus maximus]

I am a Lutheran. I am baptised and with great reverence receive the body and blood of my Savior in Holy Communion and I believe in Christ's perfect sacrifice, as you do, for the forgivness of sins...Both Lutherans and Catholics know that the Holy Scriptures show that this is the path to salvation as promised by God. Do you therefore contend I am condemed because I am not Catholic or Orthodox? Please answer simply with a yes or no...thank you.

[Mr. Lucky]

It's of no significance to conservative Lutherans in the United States, but apostolic succession continues to be observed in many Scandinavian Lutheran churches.

You may also find that referring to the clergy of other churches as "clowns" isn't a real conversation starter.