Topic: The Theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas

[orthodoxlurker]

This topic has been split from the EP & Met. Zizioulas Slam the Russian Orthodox Church as they Meet in Rome thread. 

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator

In any case, Oecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is not as highly regarded as the throne of Most Holy Oecumenical Patriarch he occupies. Yet, I try to understand his position and ought to give some credit to him.

Statements and theology of Mrt Zlizloulas, though not so widely known and recognized by Orthodox (well, not all of us speak English...) is gaining some attention and I must say cause outrage. Very best he would do to preserve Orthodox Unity is to mute his voice. Since this is unlikely, there is a chance of severing ties.

If that happens, I'll not be with Mrt. Zlizloulas.

[Fr. George]

Statements and theology of Mrt Zlizloulas, though not so widely known and recognized by Orthodox (well, not all of us speak English...) is gaining some attention and I must say cause outrage. Very best he would do to preserve Orthodox Unity is to mute his voice. Since this is unlikely, there is a chance of severing ties. 

I don't know about severing ties over Metropolitan John.  Some of his statements have been questionable, but most of his theology seems ok.  There are, however, some things he says in his writings that I too question.

[Tzimis]

I wouldn't worry to much over the EP losing Constantinople. Turkey will soon enter the European union. Let us not forget where most Orthodox get there Chrism from.
Metropolitan John Zizioulas's theology is pure Genius. What exactly do you find questionable Cleveland?

[Fr. George]

I wouldn't worry to much over the EP losing Constantinople. Turkey will soon enter the European union. Let us not forget where most Orthodox get there Chrism from.
Metropolitan John Zizioulas's theology is pure Genius. What exactly do you find questionable Cleveland?

I think he goes overboard on some of the relativistic language.  Overall I find it good, though.

[Tzimis]

I think he goes overboard on some of the relativistic language.  Overall I find it good, though.

I think he does an excellent job of uniting two Ecclesiological concepts. When the Church trend was focusing too highly on the Alexandrian theology. He was just what was needed. It was heading towards Protestantism.

[orthodoxlurker]

I think he goes overboard on some of the relativistic language.  Overall I find it good, though.

Some seven years ago I read an article of him translated into Serbian and published in newspapers of a Serbian diocese. It was the time of my blissed ignorance, when I was unaware about ecumenism/antiecumenism, existence of Old-Calendar schism in most Patriarchates and actions been taken by Constantinopolis for 80 years.

The article made me feeling physical pain.

Unlike Orthodox writers, whose writings flow like a powerful river, sound like a beautiful song, that article was quite different.

The conclusions, although seemed Orthodox, were based on arguments that were not related and proper for respective conclusion. Basically it's flawed way of thinking. The entire course of thought were not a flow, it was zig-zag line.

I was shocked and more Orthodox writers I read later, I felt better. So I basically don read him anymore. I forgot what was the article about - it was so destructive to me.

Yet another argument of his supporters is that we, his opponents, don't understand him, because we aren't educated enough. Fine.

Any carpenter can understand St. John of Damascus, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Athanasios the Great and it doesn't take much education for it.

The same goes for most contemporary Orthodox theologians, but not for Metr. Zlizloulas. Though there is some similarity with Roman Catholics in the sense they too cannot take a grasp of their theology without much education, so they need and infallible Pope to tell them what to believe.

My final judgment is that his teaching is aimed at rephrasing Orthodox Faith to base it on false and flawed arguments, unlike the arguments used by the Holy Fathers to reach the same conclusions. Consequently, once we base our Faith on writings of Metr. Zlizloulas and forget the Holy Fathers, although there would be no difference in conclusions, we would be building on foundation of sand.

I won't read him anymore, it's destructive for my soul.

[Symeon]

IMO, some of Zizioulas's Trinitarian stuff comes uncomfortably close to Arianism, at least verbally.

[PeterTheAleut]

My final judgment is that his teaching is aimed at rephrasing Orthodox Faith to base it on false and flawed arguments, unlike the arguments used by the Holy Fathers to reach the same conclusions. Consequently, once we base our Faith on writings of Metr. Zlizloulas and forget the Holy Fathers, although there would be no difference in conclusions, we would be building on foundation of sand.

Can you give specific examples of this difference in approach?

[buzuxi]

Metropolitan Zizioulas is quite the ecumenists, and basically I too have read things from him that basically make no Orthodox sense. This wasnt always the case though. In his book "Eucharist Bishop Church"  first published in the early 1960's, it is quite Orthodox and a classic. In fact this excellent historical study is contrary to what Rome claims for itself today and even contradicts the modern day Metr Zizioulas himself!.

Unfortunately things have changed and this is even admitted to in the Preface of that same book. The Preface; added on just a decade or two ago, in its opening chapter, says that  since now church unity occupies an important place in "theological study" the book should be revised to accomodate ecumenism! Page 5 of the preface even laments that Metr Zizioulas doesnt have the time to republish the book and add additional chapters to the book with a new bibliography (even though he wants to since nowadays he doesnt feel its complete).  The Preface is almost in a subtle way encouraging the intentional distortion of church history in order to now accomodate unity with the RC!

If anyone wants to know first hand how over time the Orthodox bishops capitulated in the pseudo council of Florence and how history can repeat itself needs to read Zizioulas excellent and historically accurant book "Eucharist, Bishop, Church" and compare to what he teaches today.     

[Symeon]

There are serious problems when one stubbornly refuses to call the Son and Holy Spirit "God," and only gives this title to the Father. I'm not a huge fan of David Bentley Hart, but he is quite right to criticize the "small, deeply misguided set of theologians [who have] even begun using the name ‘God’ (ho Theos) of the Father alone, imagining this to be proper obedience to ancient liturgical usage and to the doctrine of the paternal monarchia."

[orthodoxlurker]

Can you give specific examples of this difference in approach?

I'm affraid I'm not able to speak authoritatively about it, I'm not a theologian, but I am able to speak about my impression about it, though it takes time and effort to me, and every such an effort is destructive to my feelings.

Here is an interesting article

http://kyledavidbennett.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-zizioulas-docetist.html
Kyle David Bennett

Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Is Zizioulas a Docetist?

I completed Being and Communion yesterday evening and we deliberated about it in class today. It was exciting. Before this reading I was acquainted with Zizioulas’ work but I couldn’t have delineated the nuances of his ecclesiology and the foci of his predications like I can now. I enjoyed investigating the differences between his “communion ecclesiology” and that of Dumitru Staniloae, Vladimir Lossky, Nicholas Afanasiev and other Orthodox theologians. I discovered that while all these Orthodox theologians seek a "communion ecclesiology" they all do not concur as to what exactly a “communion ecclesiology” is and should be. The reason this is so is because each of them has different conceptions of the Trinity (especially the relations and economies of the Son and Spirit). Being that they predicate their ecclesiologies on their notions of the Trinity, and they have diverse notions of the Trinity, their notions of a “communion ecclesiology” are varied.

With that said, upon a careful reading I discovered a few fallacious conclusions that Zizioulas arrives at. The main one being and the only one I’ll share in this post is: Christ's hypostasis.

Unlike Lossky, who divided the economies of the Son and Spirit,[1]  Zizioulas attempts to synthesize them. He posits that the Son institutes the Church, i.e., Christ states the reality of the Church’s identity and what her mission is, and the Spirit constitutes her, i.e., She shapes and forms the Church according to this identity and mission.[2] Zizioulas then explicates his Christology and concentrates on Christ’s hypostases.[3] He contends that Christ has a biological hypostasis (human) and an eschatological one (divine).[4] Here he is correct and follows traditional Orthodox doctrine albeit employing novel terms that are occasionally confusing. However, he continues and states that Christ’s biological hypostasis, after his death and resurrection, was rendered unreal and the eschatological one was the only hypostasis deemed real.

This is where I demur and think Zizioulas sets up a false dichotomy that ends up limiting the scope of his “communion ecclesiology” (I’ll save this for another post). Furthermore, he negates the Chalcedonian formulation, which he employs to aggrandize his argument. Suffice it to say, I am not certain that Zizioulas ruminated the hypostatic union adequately enough before he applied it to his logic and rhetoric. Instead of stating that the eschatological hypostasis is the only real hypostasis Zizioulas should have stated that the biological hypostasis could be real only when it participates in the eschatological one. That way he wouldn’t have set up a false dichotomy between the reality of the biological and eschatological. Moreover, he wouldn’t have inadvertently disparaged the biological hypostasis, or humanity, of Jesus Christ and intimated a Docetic view of his existence.

In my opinion, on this point Zizioulas leaves the believer wondering how “real” their bodily existence is. Moreover, he leaves them, in typical Platonic fashion, in a polarized state bemused over which person is more significant: who they are now or who they will be at the eschaton.
--------------------------
[1] Keep in mind, Lossky is appropriating Afanasiev and Zizioulas is appropriating Lossky. Lossky deliberately devoted separate chapters to the economies of the Son and Spirit in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church: chapters seven and eight.

[2] This is equivalent to Protestant institution and sanctification.

[3] Simply put, but terribly risking oversimplication, traditionally, “hypostasis” has referred to the essence or nature of an individual. For Zizioulas it refers to a person, who is an individual in relationship with God and others, as they were created to be, and is so in freedom.

[4] Zizioulas, Being and Communion, 55 n. 49.

The questions I ask are:

1) If there is the difference in understanding of the Holy Trinity between Metr. Zlizloulas on one side and Afanasiev and Lossky on the other side, whom of them is with the Holy Fathers?

2) Wouldn't proclamation of two hypostasis justify the accusation of monofisites that the teaching of Chalcedon leads to schisofrenic understanding of Christ?

3) If all we know is that our bodies will be changed upon General Resurrection, and nobody and no one dared to explain what kind of difference would that be before Metr. Zlizloulas, I'm curious to know proofs for his stance that "the eschatological hypostasis is the only real hypostasis"? Did he have a revelation of it? Or it is just his wisdom? Have any of the Holy Fathers before him been so wise?

4) If Christ after Resurrection does have only "unreal" human hipostasis, what are we to expect? And how does that differ from what "Bishop" Spong proclaimed as his teaching?

5) Is there the unseparable union of divine and human in Christ as an example for all of us to strive for, or is it yet to be achieved once upon His Second Arrival? In case of the later, why had Christ suffered and died for? Did he really gained victory over death by his humanity, too? Is there really Hades/Hell and Paradise? Do we really eat His flesh and drink His blood in eucharist?

I can't see how I can answer yes to these questions under 5 if I believe that "the eschatological hypostasis is the only real hypostasis" of Christ?

There is also stuff at Italia Ortodossa http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm

That much from me, an ignorant lay sinner. I hope I did not hurt anyone's feelings, it wasn't my intention. I just expressed my opposition to theology and actions, and not to the person of said Metronpolitan. And if I don't understand it, someone should explain it to me in the same fashion that he would explain it to my late grandmother that had only a high school, but was able to plant basics of Orthodox Christianity into her grandchildren.

[Tzimis]

That much from me, an ignorant lay sinner. I hope I did not hurt anyone's feelings, it wasn't my intention. I just expressed my opposition to theology and actions, and not to the person of said Metronpolitan. And if I don't understand it, someone should explain it to me in the same fashion that he would explain it to my late grandmother that had only a high school, but was able to plant basics of Orthodox Christianity into her grandchildren.

There are two trains of thought in Orthodoxy. The Alexandrian and the Cappadocian  . The Alexandrian is based on salvation through the Holy Spirit (Ascetic life), basically leaving out the Eucharistic approach to salvation. Making the Eucharist just a spiritual experience. The cappadocian  witch unites the church within the Eucharist was always more dominant. When one chooses one over the other they tend to leave the other behind. The Alexandrian approach alone leads to Protestantism. Because it believes that the church is what the Holy Spirit has united. Ring a bell. Belief in the Eucharist alone leads to Catholicism leaving out the Holy Spirit. What Met.Zizioulas does is unite both thoughts, because salvation is both Metaphysical and physical.

[orthodoxlurker]

There are two trains of thought in Orthodoxy. The Alexandrian and the Cappadocian  . The Alexandrian is based on salvation through the Holy Spirit (Ascetic life), basically leaving out the Eucharistic approach to salvation. Making the Eucharist just a spiritual experience. The cappadocian  witch unites the church within the Eucharist was always more dominant. When one chooses one over the other they tend to leave the other behind. The Alexandrian approach alone leads to Protestantism. Because it believes that the church is what the Holy Spirit has united. Ring a bell. Belief in the Eucharist alone leads to Catholicism leaving out the Holy Spirit. What Met.Zizioulas does is unite both thoughts, because salvation is both Metaphysical and physical.

Thank you very much, but:

1) I thought there used to be Alexandrian and Atniochian schools, but both were "united" by Capadoccians, and each "train" is Orthodox to the bones.

2) You haven't addressed any question I posted above.

[lubeltri]

Belief in the Eucharist alone leads to Catholicism leaving out the Holy Spirit. What Met.Zizioulas does is unite both thoughts, because salvation is both Metaphysical and physical.

Hmm, I was not aware that we don't believe in the Holy Spirit...

[ialmisry]

I wouldn't worry to much over the EP losing Constantinople. Turkey will soon enter the European union. Let us not forget where most Orthodox get there Chrism from.

Moscow.

[Pravoslavbob]

Hmm, I was not aware that we don't believe in the Holy Spirit...

Your liturgy is short on references to the Holy Spirit (explicit or implicit) and is at least one reason, IMHO, why liturgical scholars such as Keith F. Pecklers, S.J. and James F.
White, among others, bemoan that an eschatological element is tragically missing from the Roman liturgy (and I would extrapolate from this the Western Christian experience in general), and why I think the transformative nature of the liturgy and the Church has not been successfully appropriated or understood by the West.

[Anastasios]

Fr John Behr from SVS used to criticize Zizioulas's Trinitarian doctrine as presented in "Being as Communion", especially Zizoulas's take on perichoreisis. I don't recall the exact argument though as that was ages ago...well 4 years...seems like ages.

I think he wrote an article about the topic but I'd have to find it. What I like about Fr John though is he tries not to mention his opponents by name, critiquing the idea and not the person.

[Fr. George]

Maybe I should have read Being as Communion more closely when I was supposed to.  I only skimmed the book.  I've only read significant portions of "Eucharist Bishop Church."

[Tzimis]

Thank you very much, but:

1) I thought there used to be Alexandrian and Atniochian schools, but both were "united" by Capadoccians, and each "train" is Orthodox to the bones.

Yes, but Whoever is not acquainted with the Cappadocians, is not acquainted with the dogma of the Holy Trinity.

[Tzimis]

Fr John Behr from SVS used to criticize Zizioulas's Trinitarian doctrine as presented in "Being as Communion", especially Zizoulas's take on perichoreisis. I don't recall the exact argument though as that was ages ago...well 4 years...seems like ages.

I think he wrote an article about the topic but I'd have to find it. What I like about Fr John though is he tries not to mention his opponents by name, critiquing the idea and not the person.

Might this be it?
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/john_zizioulas_communion_otherness.htm

[orthodoxlurker]

Yes, but Whoever is not acquainted with the Cappadocians, is not acquainted with the dogma of the Holy Trinity.

I'd never say so.

Everyone who is attending services and is reciting Creed for a while is actually perfectly acquainted with the dogma of the Holy Trinity, to the extent it's possible to us, humans, to comprehend it.

But, why are you giving me lectures while avoiding to address the questions I posted above?

[buzuxi]

If Metr Zizioulas made a distinction between a human hypostasis and a divine hypostasis, then he is promoting Nestorianism, plain and simple. 
 It is the one and same Jesus Christ who was born of Mary and walked the earth and later ressurected. Christ is the one and same person whether before or after His ressurection, thanks to the Hypostatic Union which took place in the womb of the Theotokos. 

[Tzimis]

I'd never say so.

Everyone who is attending services and is reciting Creed for a while is actually perfectly acquainted with the dogma of the Holy Trinity, to the extent it's possible to us, humans, to comprehend it.

But, why are you giving me lectures while avoiding to address the questions I posted above?

This may solve all of your questions.
By: V. Bakouros

 

Directly dependent on the existential-personal dimension of Love, is the dogma of triunity. The term “Dogma” does not apply to something “inexplicable” (as we shall see further down), but to something “rudimentary”.  To be precise, it signifies the “rationalizing of something that cannot be expressed”; a rationalizing that founds the gnostic edifice.

If God –as an absolute essence– had only one persona, then that persona could not exist independently of the essence, and subsequently would not be able to be in communion with it existentially, through Love.

If the beyond-time and non-finite essence of God were expressed (existentially) through one persona only, then that persona would have been obliged to acknowledge it (the essence) out of necessity, otherwise it would be abolishing itself. Furthermore, the persona would also be incapable of loving the essence, because it would - inevitably- be in an eternal co-existence with it, ontologically as well.

Therefore, on the basis of Aristotelian logic, what would the single persona of the divine be contradistinguished with existentially (in order to define itself), if the essence alone were the “other reigning factor”?  We can see how this would have meant a compulsory relationship, and not a relationship of freedom, of Love.

The problem of a God subjugated to Fate, which was previously an ontological problem, is posed once again - but now as an existential problem - and cannot be solved.  Triunity (the co-existence of three personae) solves this problem of a servant God, because the three personae define themselves individually and each other, and they also freely choose to love, to exist in communion with each other, thus giving that same divine essence a hypostasis. At an ordinary ontological level, this issue appears impossible to solve.

Love, therefore, in Christian theology and life theory, is not a simple sentiment.  It is an existential category, which defines that very concept and experience of God, and even further, the very concept and experience of man.

If God exists in this manner because He loves, then man also is understood-fulfilled in this manner, and not in any other, because he loves.  When this does not occur, man is self-annulled.

[orthodoxlurker]

This may solve all of your questions.
By: V. Bakouros

Huh?

Let me see if few lines, that were obviously part of a wider article, without a link or the title of work, or credentials of the author are able to "solve all my problems".

Directly dependent on the existential-personal dimension of Love, is the dogma of triunity.

How come it is "directly dependent"?

Since when Orthodox profess "dogma of triunity"? I know about dogma of the Holy Trinity, but "dogma of triunity" is unknown to me.

To be precise, it signifies the “rationalizing of something that cannot be expressed”; a rationalizing that founds the gnostic edifice.
...
It is an existential category, which defines that very concept and experience of God, and even further, the very concept and experience of man.
...
If God exists in this manner because He loves, then man also is understood-fulfilled in this manner, and not in any other, because he loves.

That migh work for gnostics, as the author himself recognizes. I also know much of the errors that puzzled West are a direct cosequence of the rationalizing about uncomprehensible and unspeakable, which is directly (again) in contradiction with the sound Orthodox teaching:

Like St. Gregory of Nyssa thought us:

"Let those who would pry into the mystery of the life of God, realize how little they understand of the mysteries of the life of the ant."

Like St. Gregory the Theologian thought us:

"Do tell me what is the unbegotteness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God"

But the author obviously knows better than those two (of total three) Cappadocian Fathers.

The problem of a God subjugated to Fate, which was previously an ontological problem, is posed once again - but now as an existential problem - and cannot be solved.

The author obviously has some problem, which isn't explained in these few lines, which he says is an ontological one, so he decided to pose it now as an existential one and conclude it neither can be solved. What does it have with me, and Orthodox Christian? Is there something here I should be impressed with?

Triunity (the co-existence of three personae) solves this problem of a servant God, because the three personae define themselves individually and each other, and they also freely choose to love, to exist in communion with each other, thus giving that same divine essence a hypostasis. At an ordinary ontological level, this issue appears impossible to solve.

What is the problem of "a servant God" according to the author? Does he believe in God, or in a God?

Demetrios, are you serious? Is that the best shoot you can take in defense of "genioius" Metr. Zlizloulas? Why didn't you address any of those five questions of mine?

[Fr. George]

This may solve all of your questions.
By: V. Bakouros 

Demetrios, could you give a link to where you found that, or if you typed it the name of the article and where you found it?  It would be helpful, and in line with forum guidelines.


The only way I could find it is in the Google cache (it seems the site that I found it quoted on - the Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries, or OODE - isn't working, or at least not for me):
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:N_VWZwzCFP8J:www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/agapi_elefth3.htm+%22then+that+persona+could+not+exist+independently+of+the+essence%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This article is the third part of the extract from an article by the University teacher V. Bakouros that was published in the magazine “TREETO MAHTI” (December 2004 edition No.128, pages 22-26, with the general title “Socialistic Social Solidarity and Christian Love”).

This article is being re-published, by kind courtesy of the magazine, and will be completed in a series of segmented articles.

[Tzimis]

Demetrios, could you give a link to where you found that, or if you typed it the name of the article and where you found it?  It would be helpful, and in line with forum guidelines.


The only way I could find it is in the Google cache (it seems the site that I found it quoted on - the Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries, or OODE - isn't working, or at least not for me):
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:N_VWZwzCFP8J:www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/agapi_elefth3.htm+%22then+that+persona+could+not+exist+independently+of+the+essence%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Try this link. Click at the English flag if you do not read Greek.  http://www.oodegr.com/oode/dogma/agapi_elefth4.htm

[Tzimis]

Demetrios, are you serious? Is that the best shoot you can take in defense of "genioius" Metr. Zlizloulas? Why didn't you address any of those five questions of mine?

phrase them a little better and I will.

[Papist]

 Belief in the Eucharist alone leads to Catholicism leaving out the Holy Spirit.

Wow. That's right. We Catholics don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Thanks for reminding me; I had forgotten this secret Church teaching and had been accepting the heresy of the Trinity all of my life.  Come now man. I see Eastern Orthodox Christian try to create all kinds of non-existant problems in Catholic theology for polemical prupose (some of you guys sure love your straw men) but this one takes the cake.

[Tzimis]

Wow. That's right. We Catholics don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Thanks for reminding me; I had forgotten this secret Church teaching and had been accepting the heresy of the Trinity all of my life.  Come now man. I see Eastern Orthodox Christian try to create all kinds of non-existant problems in Catholic theology for polemical prupose (some of you guys sure love your straw men) but this one takes the cake.

As a Catholic you can easily validate my point. Can man be saved without baptism?

[Pravoslavbob]

Wow. That's right. We Catholics don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Thanks for reminding me; I had forgotten this secret Church teaching and had been accepting the heresy of the Trinity all of my life.  Come now man. I see Eastern Orthodox Christian try to create all kinds of non-existant problems in Catholic theology for polemical prupose (some of you guys sure love your straw men) but this one takes the cake.

See my last post.

[orthodoxlurker]

It seems trolling out and expressing "arguments" to prove Metr. Zlizloulas criticize Roman Catholics (as if it was a proof about his Orthodoxy) occurred. Yet:

phrase them a little better and I will.

When you swallow communion, what do you eat:

1) Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ

or

2)Bread and wine that will become flesh and blood in eshaton only?

[serb1389]

I would just like to join in on this parade and say that Met. John makes my skin crawl and I do not like his writings to the point of detesting them. 

Anyone who writes things and then is "loved" by EVERYONE and "makes so much sense" sends up HUGE red warning lights for me. 

I absolutely agree with the OP in that he makes NO sense to me. 

I also just wanted to post to be kept abreast of this thread.   

[Tzimis]

It seems trolling out and expressing "arguments" to prove Metr. Zlizloulas criticize Roman Catholics (as if it was a proof about his Orthodoxy) occurred. Yet:

When you swallow communion, what do you eat:

1) Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ

or

2)Bread and wine that will become flesh and blood in eshaton only?

When you pray for intercession with an icon are you praying to the icon or the saint depicted in the icon?

[Tzimis]

I would just like to join in on this parade and say that Met. John makes my skin crawl and I do not like his writings to the point of detesting them. 

Anyone who writes things and then is "loved" by EVERYONE and "makes so much sense" sends up HUGE red warning lights for me. 

I absolutely agree with the OP in that he makes NO sense to me. 

I also just wanted to post to be kept abreast of this thread.   

Ya, he is the Antichrist. Yawn

[serb1389]

Wow...grandstanding...havn't seen that one in a while.  smirk

[PeterTheAleut]

When you pray for intercession with an icon are you praying to the icon or the saint depicted in the icon?

Bad analogy.  Whereas we believe an icon to be a symbolic representation of the person depicted, we believe the Eucharist IS Christ, not merely a symbolic representation of Him.  There is simply no comparison.

[Tzimis]

Bad analogy.  Whereas we believe an icon to be a symbolic representation of the person depicted, we believe the Eucharist IS Christ, not merely a symbolic representation of Him.  There is simply no comparison.

So than everybody that goes to the Eucharist is simple saved regardless of the state of there soul.

[orthodoxlurker]

Bad analogy. 

Extremely bad. But anyway:

I pray for the intercession of a Saint who is able to intercede both here and now and in eshaton, and not in eshaton only. The same I partake His flesh and blood here and now, and not what will become His flesh and blood in eshaton only.

Demetrios, you still haven't answered any question of mine.

[orthodoxlurker]

So than everybody that goes to the Eucharist is simple saved regardless of the state of there soul.

And how exactly does that differ from the teaching of "Bishop" Spong?

[PeterTheAleut]

So than everybody that goes to the Eucharist is simple saved regardless of the state of there soul.

No.  In fact, many are condemned precisely because, in receiving the Eucharist, they have received Christ.  Have you not read St. Paul on this matter?  (cf. 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11:18-34).

[orthodoxlurker]

Extremely bad. But anyway:

I pray for the intercession of a Saint who is able to intercede both here and now and in eshaton, and not in eshaton only.

I should add:

Wouldn't the Saints be judged at the Judgment Day, along with the rest of us, too? How would they be able to intercede on that day when they wouldn't be able to look at His face?

If they will be able to intercede in eshaton only, when we are not alive anymore, why didn't Abraham interceded for the rich man?

[Tzimis]

No.  In fact, many are condemned precisely because, in receiving the Eucharist, they have received Christ.  Have you not read St. Paul on this matter?  (cf. 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11:18-34).

And what is that condemnation that you speak of?

[Tzimis]

And how exactly does that differ from the teaching of "Bishop" Spong?

It doesn't differ one bit. The difference is that the end result is hell instead of hell. But what is hell?

[Tzimis]

I should add:

Wouldn't the Saints be judged at the Judgment Day, along with the rest of us, too? How would they be able to intercede on that day when they wouldn't be able to look at His face?

If they will be able to intercede in eshaton only, when we are not alive anymore, why didn't Abraham interceded for the rich man?

If eternal life is infinite that why are you looking at time? Recapitulation doesn't include time.

[Tzimis]

I should add:

Wouldn't the Saints be judged at the Judgment Day, along with the rest of us, too? How would they be able to intercede on that day when they wouldn't be able to look at His face?

If they will be able to intercede in eshaton only, when we are not alive anymore, why didn't Abraham interceded for the rich man?

You really don't see it do you? The end times are at every liturgy. Are not the saints there judging us in the Icons. Church is a depiction of the last day.