OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 20, 2008, 08:43:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Interested in helping develop content on the site? PM Fr. Anastasios for more information.
 
   Home   Help Rules Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register Chat  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Holy Eucharist  (Read 2700 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« on: November 24, 2003, 03:49:02 PM »

It is not my purpose to stir controversy with this poll.

I am just curious.

Frankly, I was surprised by the amount of debate on the recent Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation thread.

This poll purposely avoids the use of those terms.

I would just like to see what the folks who frequent this web site think.

If you need to clarify something with regard to what you believe, please do so with a post.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Doubting Thomas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749

Anglican Catholic


« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2003, 04:04:06 PM »

I think my viewpoint would fall somewhere between choices one and two, perhaps somewhat closer to the second (depending on what you mean by "unchange"):

(1)The bread and wine are literally and completely transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Only the appearance, taste, smell, feel, etc. of bread and wine remain.
(2) The Body and Blood of Christ are present, but the bread and wine remain unchanged.

I believe that on one LEVEL, the level of physical sense-perception, the objects remain bread and wine.  However, on the HIGHER  LEVEL, the mystical level, the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ.  The bread and wine are no longer common but transformed.

I feel that neither term--transubstantiation nor consubstantiation--adequately describe my view, but I could be wrong.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2003, 04:14:45 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2003, 04:11:57 PM »

I think my viewpoint would fall somewhere between choices one and two, perhaps somewhat closer to the second (depending on what you mean by "unchange"):

(1)The bread and wine are literally and completely transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Only the appearance, taste, smell, feel, etc. of bread and wine remain.
(2) The Body and Blood of Christ are present, but the bread and wine remain unchanged.

I believe that on one LEVEL, the level of physical sense-perception, the objects remain bread and wine.  However, on the HIGHER  LEVEL, the mystical level, the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ.  The bread and wine are no longer common but transformed.

That sounds like Option #1 to me.

Of course the Eucharist is perceived by the senses as bread and wine.

The question is: What is the reality?

Is the Eucharist really the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Body and Blood of Christ + something less?

Sorry for appearing to debate. I don't mean to turn this thread into The Other Thread Part II.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Doubting Thomas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749

Anglican Catholic


« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2003, 04:41:45 PM »


That sounds like Option #1 to me.

Of course the Eucharist is perceived by the senses as bread and wine.

The question is: What is the reality?

Is the Eucharist really the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Body and Blood of Christ + something less?

Again, I think it depends on which level of reality one is describing.  However, the higher, mystical level of reality would be the ultimate reality, if that makes sense.  I don't think its the "Body/Blood plus something else" as the two refer to different levels of reality.


Quote
Sorry for appearing to debate. I don't mean to turn this thread into The Other Thread Part II.

Nothing to be sorry about.  Smiley
When one speaks of bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, it's not surprising people have difficulty describing such a supernatural event.  I think terms like "tran-" and "con-" needlessly complicate the issue.  I'm content to leave it as a mystery.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Saint Polycarp
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2003, 05:24:03 PM »

It is not my purpose to stir controversy with this poll.

I am just curious.

Frankly, I was surprised by the amount of debate on the recent Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation thread.

This poll purposely avoids the use of those terms.

I would just like to see what the folks who frequent this web site think.

If you need to clarify something with regard to what you believe, please do so with a post.


Number one, Linus. Never read any orthodox church  documents or ECF which would agree with any of the other choices till after the 16th century.  Roll Eyes
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Doubting Thomas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749

Anglican Catholic


« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2003, 05:33:03 PM »

Number one, Linus. Never read any orthodox church  documents or ECF which would agree with any of the other choices till after the 16th century.  Roll Eyes
Peace,
Polycarp


Why?
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2003, 06:11:30 PM »

Of course I chose #1 - of course I'd allow personally for any but the 3rd choice to be a valid understanding of the Real Presence - NOT THE BEST understanding, but passable Smiley
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The young fogey
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,969


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2003, 06:22:54 PM »

That so far everybody but one has answered with No. 1 (I did) shows me that the Eastern Orthodox belief about the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic Church's.

Quote
of course I'd allow personally for any but the 3rd choice to be a valid understanding of the Real Presence - NOT THE BEST understanding, but passable


Non-negotiable. No. 1 is the right answer.
Logged

Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2003, 06:37:54 PM »

serge: the Real Presence is the right answer Smiley Transubstantiation is the best explanation and understanding, but since the church fathers did not feel it was important to understand HOW the Lord is real in the Eucharist, I'm willing to allow for many HOWS as long as the Real Presence is confessed.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Keble
Arch-Protestant
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,259



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2003, 06:41:06 PM »

That so far everybody but one has answered with No. 1 (I did) shows me that the Eastern Orthodox belief about the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic Church's.

Maybe what it means is that the decks are heavily stacked with a lot of current or ex- Catholics.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 6,501


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2003, 07:46:23 PM »

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
The young fogey
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,969


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2003, 07:47:24 PM »

Quote
Maybe what it means is that the decks are heavily stacked with a lot of current or ex-Catholics.

-£-+-¦-¦-é -¦-ï-é-î - you may be right! There's not enough evidence to prove that, though, unless some knowledgeable born Orthodox answer the survey and reveal their views on this thread.

But it's still clear that Orthodoxy teaches Answer No. 1.

Quote
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine.

An astounding teaching: that the Eastern Orthodox are proto-Lutherans! No. If that were true, the Catholic Church would allow their people to have limited intercommunion with them. They'd be Protestants.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2003, 07:49:41 PM by Serge » Logged

Αριστοκλής
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 6,501


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2003, 07:53:05 PM »

Quote
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine.

An astounding teaching: that the Eastern Orthodox are proto-Lutherans! No. If that were true, the Catholic Church would allow their people to have limited intercommunion with them. They'd be Protestants.

No, it's the other way around. They're proto-Orthodox. I don't care what the"Catholics" do  or allow.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Fr. Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 7,903


That is what I look like in case you wondered.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2003, 07:55:03 PM »

I posted this once before when we discussed this.  It is from Byzantine Theology by Fr John Meyendorff.

16. The Eucharist

FORMAL CONSERVATISM was one of the predominant features of Byzantine civilization, affecting both the secular and the sacred aspects of life, and the forms of the liturgy in particular. But if the avowed intention was to preserve things as they were, if the basic structures of the Eucharistic liturgy have not been modified since the early centuries of Christianity and even today retain the forms which they acquired in the ninth century, the interpretation of words and gestures was subject to substantial change and evolution. Thus, Byzantine ritual conservatism was instrumental in preserving the original Christian lex orandi, otherwise often reinterpreted in the context of a Platonizing or moralizing symbolism, though it also allowed in due timeGÇöespecially with Nicholas Cabasilas and the Hesychast theologians of the fourteenth centuryGÇöa strong reaffirmation of the original sacramental realism in liturgical theology.

1. SYMBOLS, IMAGES, AND REALITY

Early Christianity and the patristic tradition understood the Eucharist as a mystery of true and real communion with Christ. Speaking of the Eucharist, Chrysostom insists that "Christ even now is present, even now operates";1 and Gregory of Nyssa, in spite of the Platonizing tendencies of his thought, otherwise stands for the same view of the Eucharist as a mystery of real "participation" in the glorified Body of Christ, the seed of immortality.

By dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose existence comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the Immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He "trans-elements" [metastoicheiosisJ the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.2

Participation in these sources of immortality and unity is a constant concern for every Christian:

It is good and beneficial to communicate every day [Basil writes,] and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" [In 6:55]. And who doubts that to share frequently in life is the same thing as to have manifold life? I indeed communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.3

This realistic and existential theology of the Eucharist was, as we have seen,4 challenged by pastoral needs in the post-Constantinian Church: large congregations in large churches caused a lessening of participation by the laity.

It may be argued that the pastoral considerations which prompted this evolution were at least partially justified; the eschatological meaning of the Eucharist implied a withdrawal from the "world," a "closed" community of committed participants. Now that in the empire of Constantine and Justinian, the Church and the world had become indistinguishable as a single society, the Eucharist had to be protected from the "crowd," which had ceased to be the "people of God." More questionable, however, was the theological rationalization of this new situation, which was endorsed by some commentators on the liturgy who began to explain the Eucharist as a system of symbols to be "contemplated"; sacramental participation was thus gradually replaced with intellectual vision. Needless to say, this new attitude was perfectly suited to the Origenistic and Evagrian understanding of religion as an ascent of the mind to God, of which liturgical action was a symbol.

Most influential in promoting this symbolic understanding of the Eucharist were the writings of pseudo-Dionysius. Reducing the Eucharistic synaxis to a moral appeal, the Areopagite calls his readers to a "higher" contemplation:

Let us leave to the imperfect these signs which, as I said, are magnificently painted in the vestibules of the sanctuaries; they will be sufficient to feed their contemplation. As far as we are concerned: let us turn back, in considering the holy synaxis, from the effects to their causes, and, thanks to the lights which Jesus will give us, we shall be able to contemplate harmoniously the intelligible realities in which are clearly reflected the blessed goodness of the models.5

Thus, the Eucharist is only the visible "effect" of an invisible "model"; and the celebrant "by offering Jesus Christ to our eyes, shows us in a tangible way and, as in an image, our intelligible life." 6 Thus, for Dionysius, "the loftiest sense of the Eucharistic rites and of sacramental communion itself is in symbolizing the union of our minds with God and with Christ. . . . Dionysius never formally presents Eucharistic communion as a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ." 7

Dionysius' symbolism only superficially affected the Eucharistic rites themselves, but it became quite popular among commentators on the liturgy. Thus, the great Maximus the Confessor, whose use of the concept of "symbol" is probably more realistic than Dionysius', nevertheless systematically applies the terms "symbol" or "image" to the Eucharistic liturgy in general and to the elements of bread and wine in particular.8

In the eighth century, this symbolism led to a serious theological debate concerning the Eucharist-the only one Byzantium ever knew. The iconoclastic council of 754, in condemning the use of religious images, proclaimed that the only admissible "image" of Christ is the one established by Christ Himself, the Eucharistic Body and Blood.9 This radical and clear contention, based upon a long-standing tradition, was a real challenge to the Orthodox party; the ambiguity of the Areopagite was evidenced once more, and a clarification of symbolism made necessary.

Thus, the defenders of the images, especially Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, firmly rejected it. For Theodore, the Eucharist is not "type," but the very "truth"; it is the "mystery which recapitulates the whole of the [divine] dispensation." 10 According to Nicephorus, it is the "flesh of God," "one and the same thing" with the Body and Blood of Christ,11 who came to save the very reality of human flesh by becoming and remaining "flesh," even after His glorification; thus, in the Eucharist, "what is the matter of the sacrament, if the flesh is not real, so that we see it being perfected by the Spirit?" 12

As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine "Eucharistic realism," clearly departing from Dionysian terminology; was redirected along Christological and soteriological lines; in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the "essence of God," 13 but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink. In his treatise Against Eusebius and Epiphanius, Patriarch Nicephorus is particularly emphatic in condemning the Origenist idea that in the Eucharist man contemplates or participates in the "essence" of God.14 For him, as also for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine "energies." Characteristically, one never finds the category of "essence" (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like "transubstantiation" (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as "trans-elementation" (metastoicheiosis) or "re-ordination" (metarrhythmisis). Transubstantiation (metousiosis) appears only in the writings of the Latinophrones of the thirteenth century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios;15 but, in his case as well, direct Latin influence is obvious. The Eucharist is neither a symbol to be "contemplated" from outside nor an "essence" distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, "made known through the breaking of bread" (Lk 24:35); Byzantine theologians rarely speculated beyond this realistic and soteriological affirmation of the Eucharistic presence as that of the glorified humanity of Christ.

The rejection of the concept of the Eucharist as "image" or "symbol" is, on the other hand, very significant for the understanding of the entire Eucharistic "perception" of the Byzantines; the Eucharist for them always remained fundamentally a mystery to be received as food and drink, and not to be "seen" through physical eyes. The elements remain covered, except during the prayers of consecration and during communion; and, in contrast with Western medieval piety, were never "venerated" outside the framework of the Eucharistic liturgy itself. The Eucharist cannot reveal anything to the sense of vision; it is only the bread of heaven. Vision is offered another channel of revelation-the icons: hence, the revelatory program of the Byzantine iconostasis, with the figures of Christ and the saints exposed precisely in order to be seen and venerated. "Christ is not shown in the Holy Gifts," writes Leonid Ouspensky; "He is given. He is shown in the icons. The visible side of the reality of the Eucharist is an image which can never be replaced either by imagination or by looking at the Holy Gifts." 16

As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine Eucharistic theology retained and re-emphasized the mystery and hiddenness of this central liturgical action of the Church. But it also reaffirmed that the Eucharist was essentially a meal which could be partaken of only through eating and drinking, because God had assumed the fullness of our humanity, with all its psychic and physical functions, in order to lead it to resurrection.

Byzantine theologians had an opportunity to make the same point in connection with their anti-Latin polemics against the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. The discussion on the azymes, which started in the eleventh century, was generally entangled in arguments of purely symbolic nature (the Greeks maintained, for example, that the Eucharistic bread had to be leavened in. order to symbolize the animated humanity of Christ, while the Latin use of azymes implied ApolIinarianism, i.e., the denial that Jesus had a human soul), but the controversy also recognized that the Byzantines understood the Eucharistic bread to be necessarily consubstantial with humanity, while Latin medieval piety emphasized its "supersubstantiality," its otherworldliness. The use of ordinary bread, identical with the bread used as everyday food, was the sign of true Incarnation: "What is the daily bread [of the Lord's prayer ]," asks Nicetas Stethatos, "if it is not consubstantial with us? And the bread consubstantial with us is none other than the Body of Christ, who became consubstantial with us through the flesh of His humanity." 17

The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substanceGÇöthe Body of ChristGÇöbut viewed this bread as the "type" of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ.18 For this reason, Eucharistic theology played such a prominent role in the theological debates of the fourteenth century, when the basic issue was a confrontation between an autonomous concept of man and the Hesychast defense of "deification." The great Nicholas Cabasilas, though still bound to the old Dionysian symbolism, overcomes the dangers of Nominalism; clearly, for him as also for Gregory Palamas, the Eucharist is the mystery which not only "represents" the life of Christ and offers it to our "contemplation"; it is the moment and the place, in which Christ's deified humanity becomes ours.

He not merely clothed Himself in a body. He also took a soul and mind and will and everything human, so that He might be able to be united to the whole of us, penetrate through the whole of us, and resolve us into Himself, having in every respect joined His own to that which is ours. . . . For since it was not possible for us to ascend and participate in that which is His, He comes down to us and participates in that which is ours. And so precisely does He conform to the things which He assumed that, in giving those things to us which He has received from us, He gives Himself to us. Partaking of the body and blood of His humanity, we receive God Himself in our souls-the Body and Blood of God, and the soul, mind, and will of God-no less than His humanity.19

The last word on the Eucharist, in Byzantine theology, is thus an anthropological and soteriological understanding of the mystery. "In approaching the Eucharist, the Byzantines began not with bread qua bread, but with bread qua man." 20 Bread and wine are offered only because the Logos has assumed humanity, and they are being changed and deified by the operation of the Spirit because Christ's humanity has been transformed into glory through the cross and Resurrection. This is the thought of Cabasilas, as just quoted, and the meaning of the canon of John Chrysostom: "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts, and make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ, so that, for those who partake, they may be a purification of soul, a remission of sins, the communion of Thy Holy Spirit, the fullness of the Kingdom of heavenGǪ"

The sacrament of new humanity par excellence, the Eucharist, for Cabasilas "alone of the mysteries perfects the other sacramentsGǪ, since they cannot fulfill the initiation without it." 21 Christians partake of it "continually," for "it is the perfect sacrament for all purposes, and there is nothing of which those who partake thereof stand in need which it does not supply in an eminent way." 22 The Eucharist is also "the much praised marriage according to which the most holy Bridegroom espouses the Church as a bride";23 that is, the Eucharist is the very sacrament which truly transforms a human community into "the Church of God," and is, therefore, as we will see later, the ultimate criterion and basis of ecclesial structure.

Logged

St Mark, Raleigh: http://www.gocraleigh.org
Nativity of the Holy Theotokos, Greenville, NC: http://www.holytheotokosgreenville.org
Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and then before my ordination and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.
TomS
Banned
Archon
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,187


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2003, 08:28:39 PM »

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri


I agree 100% with Demetri, so I answered #2. 'Cause if you put the bread and wine under a microscope, it still IS bread and wine, but combined with the faith it becomes the Body and Blood in the other dimension.

FYI - It's a mystery and that's all there is to it! Why the need to try to label it?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2003, 10:57:19 PM by TomS » Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2003, 08:35:59 PM »

I don't see how what Meyendorff said squares with the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and the subsequent Council of Constantinople in 1727.

What some of the Fathers wrote about the Eucharist is a bit ambiguous - probably because they had never encountered anyone who denied that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ - but what was written by other Fathers is clear on the subject and leaves no room for "consubstantiation."

It seems to me that our Lord's words - "This is My Body; this is My Blood" - make possible only two reasonable alternatives:

1) The Eucharist actually and literally becomes the Body and Blood of Christ and nothing less; or

2) The expression was a metaphor and the eucharistic bread and wine are symbols of Christ's Body and Blood.

Our Lord did not say, "This contains My Body; this contains My Blood."

He said is.

Either the Eucharist is in reality, or it is as a metaphor. The use of is eliminates the compromise of consubstantiation.

If you ask for cheese and I give you a 12" submarine sandwich, you would be right to say, "But I asked you for cheese!"

Would it be reasonable for me to answer, "This is cheese,"  based upon the fact that there is a slice of provolone in the sandwich somewhere?

No; it is a submarine sandwich that contains a slice of cheese.

Likewise, the Eucharist either is the Body and Blood of Christ literally and truly or as metaphor, or it merely contains the Body and Blood of Christ.

The last choice is eliminated by our Lord's own language.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2003, 08:38:03 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jakub
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,274


Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear


« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2003, 08:38:27 PM »

I screwed up my vote, but being 50% Polish is excuse enough, although I can throw in over 50 and under the influence of Night Quil.

It should have been 1 but hit 2.

hey bartender, pour me another!

james
Logged

"It is true that I am of an older fashion, much that I love has been destroyed or sent into exile." G.K. Chesterton
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2003, 08:55:03 PM »

I screwed up my vote, but being 50% Polish is excuse enough, although I can throw in over 50 and under the influence of Night Quil.

It should have been 1 but hit 2.

hey bartender, pour me another!

james

Perhaps if you pm a moderator you can correct the error.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Doubting Thomas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749

Anglican Catholic


« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2003, 10:54:29 PM »

The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.


Yeah...what he said.  Smiley
(Which is also basically what I said--which was very "un-Baptist" of me  Shocked)
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
TomS
Banned
Archon
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,187


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2003, 10:56:10 PM »

which was very "un-Baptist" of me  Shocked)

It's cool DT -> I was Baptist before Orthodox....."I got better!"
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2003, 11:02:53 PM »

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri



"The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine."

^^That is not a mystery, that is a heretical un-Orthodox protestant belief. The mystery is that the bread and wine, while remaining bread and wine only in taste, shape, color, etc. becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. So many Orthodox Christians seem to not believe this that I am starting to wonder if Orthodoxy is the true Chruch or not, this is very disturbing! Lord have mercy!
« Last Edit: November 24, 2003, 11:08:24 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2003, 11:05:36 PM »

Quote
I was Baptist before Orthodox....."I got better!"
ROTFL

snort! Cheesy
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2003, 11:24:16 PM »

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri



"The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine."

^^That is not a mystery, that is a heretical un-Orthodox protestant belief. The mystery is that the bread and wine, while remaining bread and wine only in taste, shape, color, etc. becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. So many Orthodox Christians seem to not believe this that I am starting to wonder if Orthodoxy is the true Chruch or not, this is very disturbing! Lord have mercy!

I agree, Ben (not about wondering if the Orthodox Church is the true Church; I mean the rest).

The statement, "The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine, " is thoroughly and unmistakably Lutheran.

I too am amazed.

Is it Orthodox to believe the Holy Eucharist is Christ and NOT CHRIST all at the same time?

Could a priest elevate it and, speaking truly (having the bread and wine in mind), say, "This is NOT the Body and Blood of Christ" ?

It is and is not?

That's the "mystery"?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2003, 11:37:05 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
TomS
Banned
Archon
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,187


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2003, 11:46:12 PM »

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri



"The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine."

^^That is not a mystery, that is a heretical un-Orthodox protestant belief. The mystery is that the bread and wine, while remaining bread and wine only in taste, shape, color, etc. becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. So many Orthodox Christians seem to not believe this that I am starting to wonder if Orthodoxy is the true Chruch or not, this is very disturbing! Lord have mercy!

Ya see, here is the confusing part -- my Priest has said during his sermon "put the Eucharist under a microscope and it IS bread and wine. The FAITH makes it the true Body and Blood"

How is this statement un-Orthodox?
Logged
Linus7
Archon
**