curiousdannii

@Andries In Chalcedonian theology the Son doesn't have a distinct mind or will but still exercises the mental faculties. If you want to understand what Chalcedonian Christians believe then I suggest you ask a question about it. I'm not going to continue in these comments.

@Andries Huh? That quote from Ayres doesn't suggest distinct minds (mind belonging to hypostasis rather than nature/essence.) Though when you say the Cappadocians taught three distinct "beings" which Greek word is that?

"I state the core issue as whether the Son has a distinct mind." Did the Cappadocians teach the Son had a distinct divine mind from the Father? That would surprise me seeing as it was one of the Cappadocians who AFAIK first established that the divine nature has one will possessed by the Father, Son, and Spirit. But it's not impossible that they weren't consistent with other divine faculties.

"That depends on how one defines Arianism." You think the core issue is the Arians were two logos theologians. So did the Cappadocians teach that? I'd say that the core issue was that the Arians said Jesus is created, and I don't think that's really in question as a real difference from the Cappadocians. And on sources: you really need sources justifying your use of "person". Your existing resources may indeed provide that, but you need to include it in your post.

Claiming the Cappadocians were Arians is total nonsense. You mustn't be treating any of this seriously, so it's not worth us responding to you further. A shame, because if you'd written a simple answer that just highlighted the difference between one and two logos positions it would've been helpful and relevant to the question.

@Andries Your use of "person" is not justified because you've done nothing to justify it's applicability here or its equivalence to the 4th century meaning of hypostasis. You haven't presented anything which suggests the non-theological 21st century meaning of "person" has any correspondence to the 4th century meaning of "hypostasis". And you're making up numbers claiming that 99% of Christians don't know what their beliefs mean. If you want to argue against the theology of Chalcedon, do so directly, don't just use theological terms differently from everyone else without explaining so!

Yes, so why exactly do you keep using the word "person"?

And ideally if you're going to use 4th century language, you should be very explicit that you are, so that people won't mistake you as using the terminology with their current meaning. That's most important for the term hypostasis, which was in a state of flux until it settled into its stable meaning by 451, which is how most Christians still use it.

@Andries If you want to talk about strictly the period immediately after the first council of Nicaea then you shouldn't be using the language of "person". To my knowledge, neither "prosopon" not "persona" were used in that pro-Nicaea period - though if I'm wrong please correct me. So as far as I know, it is you who are confusing the eras by saying "hypostasis (Person)" and "person (hypostasis)". You can either use the language of 325 (or 360-380), or you can use the language of contemporary proponents of Nicaea, but you can't mix their language as you have been doing.

"Specifically, Nicene theology taught that the Son is the Father's own and only Wisdom or Logos." Yes. "Therefore, in Nicene theology, the Father and Son are a single divine Person with a single mind and consciousness." No. "If only one Logos exists ... it follows that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person)" No it does not follow! Please stop spreading misinformation! That's one obvious error, but I didn't read carefully to see if you made other more subtle ones. If Nicene theology is not something you can speak about accurately then please stop speaking about it at all.

@GratefulDisciple It's probably the most common Protestant way! Though my parents church I think would tear up a cob loaf instead.

@GratefulDisciple I hope that it came through that I thought there were both good aspects as well as puzzling ones!

My church uses gluten free bread, I think a sliced loaf cut into pieces. Not the best bread, but it's inclusive. (They used to have glutenous and gluten free, but switching to only gluten free was probably simpler.)

@GratefulDisciple A Catholic church? Or Protestant? Crumbley is good, but probably only for Protestants.

@GratefulDisciple That must also impact the type of bread used - can't be one that easily leaves crumbs all over.

@GratefulDisciple But there's levels of respect. Few Christians are like Muslims who would be aghast to ever see a scripture put on the ground (except those ministering in Islamic societies, who would be conscious of how that could offend.)

@GratefulDisciple Maybe the wine can't be stored after it's mixed with water? Could that be part of it?

@GratefulDisciple Everyone taking it in unison does emphasise the horizontal aspect (I'd say in balance with the vertical), whereas taking it one at a time strongly emphasises only the vertical. But it wouldn't be compatible with all theologies I guess. Left over wine is no issue when you don't believe in transubstantiation for instance.

@GratefulDisciple So you're not able to hold the bread for a while? But the bread can be given out to those going to a nursing home...

So while there are aspects that all three branches can highlight, I think it would be much better to have a single church that tries to bring them all in and balance them.

@GratefulDisciple As someone who attended two churches for a couple years, it does make it harder to participate and serve in the broader life of the church. I think only young adults would have the energy for that 😆

@SoFewAgainstSoMany Are you in contact with any local churches? They would be more likely to help you in the specifics of your need.

Do Catholic churches ever distribute communion for everyone to take at the same time? Or does the Catholic process of distributing make that not possible? Or does the Catholic thinking behind communion mean that's not right to do?

And I wouldn't say that less call-response makes them in any way less participatory.

Anglican liturgies generally have a bit more variability than that, though some are pretty rigid. And the Presbyterian liturgy (from the Book of Public Worship) deliberately doesn't set down any specific wordings, but just specifies the acts that must happen and their purposes.

@GratefulDisciple Which parts of the liturgy vary week to week? Is it basically only the Bible readings, prayers, and message? Would every other part basically be word for word the same?

@GratefulDisciple I didn't say they were participating without understanding.

Also I don't think there was a clear statement about who could participate in communion. I'm not sure what would have happened if a non Catholic visitor had thought they were meant to take it.

@GratefulDisciple Visiting Catholics can surely participate in communion can't they? But even they could get lost in the liturgy if their churches' liturgy was a different rite.

And as I said, if you can receive in one species, why not have wine be primary? Why does the leftover wine have to be consumed then and there but the bread can be stored away/distributed for those who cannot attend?

@GratefulDisciple You're taking this to a very deep spiritual level. There's also the perspective of doing it as a simple act of faith and obedience. And while long term Catholics would get used to one species communion, surely there must be some who feel like they're not obeying Christ's command to do as he instituted.

@GratefulDisciple What I'm hearing is that visitors basically shouldn't be participating. Is that the intent, that the liturgy is only for the committed?

At times they were very much not in unison, so a visitor could not make out the words. It would take a very long time in that context to learn the liturgy by absorption.

@GratefulDisciple I think it was CS Lewis who said liturgy is like a dance, you practice so that you can do it without focusing on the steps. But wouldn't it be better to explicitly teach people the steps rather than relying on them learning them by osmosis?

@GratefulDisciple Bags are much better than plates because of privacy.

@GratefulDisciple There's no hint in the Bible that bread is more primary than wine. I understand the idea that the whole is contained in either, so wouldn't that mean someone could prefer to only have the wine? In any case, they should be prepared to consecrate more if they run out.

There's my report from visiting a local Catholic church!

Lastly, it seems the future of the Catholic Church in Australia will be mostly non-white. Excluding retiree-age-members, the large majority of the congregation were non-white (in a suburb that's about 90% white European ancestry).

They had a plate for the offering, not a bag. Though I forgot churches did that at all! It's been about 15 years since I was last at a church whose giving isn't done through bank deposit. There was also a card terminal on a stand by the door - saw that as we were leaving.

I don't know how common communion of both kinds is these days, but it was offered today, and it looked like about half of the people took the wine? But when one of the two cups went empty they didn't fill it up! I saw one person cross to the other side where the other cup was still being offered, but most just went without. Not refilling it was quite weird.

As a visitor it was not very accessible though, very unclear when things were happening or why. There were hymn books at the front I think, but none in the pew already and we missed them as they went in. I'm not sure if there was a printed order of service, but we weren't offered one. But the end result was we were completely lost for the the call/response, and it all felt a little offputting.

@GratefulDisciple We went to a local Catholic church this morning for our niece's first communion. We went a few months ago for her confirmation too, and both times everything the priest said was very Trinitarian, with Mary/saints having little substantial role. Though today is the feast of Peter and Paul, so it did focus on what the NT says about them, but not in a way that felt like hagiography. Not a very deep message, but it was quite child focused so that could be why.

This site isn't the only site on the internet, and we don't have to cover all the questions. This site shines for clear and focused questions. Open ended discussions can be great too, but they're just not for this site

@GratefulDisciple You're still within Nicene/Chalcedonian Christianity though? That's still "organised" enough for me. Well, if the question is about the foundational doctrines covered by those creeds...

And the OP has just been told far too many times that I have zero leniency left. But they continue to be unwilling to ask only scoped questions.

@GratefulDisciple Being too opinion based is a close reason on every site, and often isn't considered truly off topic. But here the beliefs of individuals is off topic in a different way. I think the question fits into the later, as it's not asking about organised forms of Christianity

@GratefulDisciple Because opinions are off topic

@GratefulDisciple It's unscoped and really not something we'd expect any consistency on. And the OP has been told so many times that they need to ask on topic questions.

@Andries Well most Trinitarians do say there is only one divine mind. But I was referring to you claiming he said that "God is a single ... Person".

@Andries When I was doing more academic writing, I'd quote if the source was already very information dense or pithy, or summarise it if what I wanted to bring out of it could be expressed in less writing. But at key points you still want to quote, to let the source speak for themselves on their most important matters. But there's no strict rules on when to quote and when to summarise.