Common participation in the Eucharist can only be a final outcome of ecumenic dialogue, not the starting point.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
With respect to Holy Communion, it is up to the communicant to decide whether they are in a state of grace and worthy to receive the Eucharist. Each one of us makes that decision.
We can see that the sacramental presence of the Lord in the Eucharist is an essential gift for us and give us also the possibility to love the others and to work for the others.
With European powers no new subjects of difficulty have arisen, and those which were under discussion, although not terminated, do not present a more unfavorable aspect for the future preservation of that good understanding which it has ever been our desire to cultivate.
However, it must always remain a dialogue, and never an imposition of the church's own convictions and methods. Propose, not impose. To serve, and not to dominate.
Without dialogue, you cannot run parliament. You have to interact.
I believe that Orthodoxy has been thinking lately, and despite other impressions, that we can't have full sacramental communion if we don't first have a fundamental agreement on the question of the primacy, that still isn't there.
Dialogue means debates and everyone's point of view.
Choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions.
My church is in the detention facilities where I preside and celebrate the Eucharist. To me that's the church. That's the people of God.
The Eucharistic mystery stands at the heart and center of the liturgy since it is the fount of life by which we are cleansed and strengthened to live not for ourselves but for God and to be united in love among ourselves.
No opposing quotes found.