Topic: Some tough words from the Church Fathers.

[Justin Kissel]

When you get to my age, you start dressing for comfort rather than style, and I bet if I left my current everyday clothes outside, no one would steal them. In fact, I park on the street and I haven't locked my car for over eight years and no one has stolen it!

Well, the same for me, really; it's shorts and an old t shirt most of the time, unless the context (e.g. Liturgy) requires something better. But I think the monks were speaking of clothes that were a bit grimier and smellier than you probably wear I also leave my car unlocked most of the time... I doubt thieves have much interest in a car from 1993 that has peeling paint and 145,000 miles on it  

[ozgeorge]

Interesting that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers (forcefully removed from their contexts) to lecture Orthodox Christians on what he perceives to be their charitable obligations.

I'm not sure why this should be an issue. I don't think Bogoliubtsy was lecturing anyone. And don't Christians have charitable obligations? Christian praxis stems from The Two Great Commandments which are nothing other than our obligations to love God and love our neighbour as our self;-and everyone, Christian or non-Christian, knows this is the requirement of our Faith, so even an Atheist is able to keep us honest.

[ozgeorge]

I also leave my car unlocked most of the time... I doubt thieves have much interest in a car from 1993 that has peeling paint and 145,000 miles on it  

Well, interestingly, I don't think that's far from what the Fathers meant about monks having such clothes as would not be stolen if you left them outside. I think its more about not trying to make a scene or using outward visible signs of wealth (or holiness).

[PeterTheAleut]

Interesting that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers (forcefully removed from their contexts) to lecture Orthodox Christians on what he perceives to be their charitable obligations.

I'm not sure why this should be an issue. I don't think Bogoliubtsy was lecturing anyone. And don't Christians have charitable obligations? Christian praxis stems from The Two Great Commandments which are nothing other than our obligations to love God and love our neighbour as our self;-and everyone, Christian or non-Christian, knows this is the requirement of our Faith, so even an Atheist is able to keep us honest.

But to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers to communicate a message they may not have intended implies a knowledge of the Fathers that may, in fact, not exist.  If, for instance, Bogoliubtsy had decided to express his message in a way that didn't involve a distortion of the doctrines of the Fathers, I would have probably responded differently.  For one to use the Fathers to effectively communicate a message to those who follow after the Fathers, one should probably speak from the foundation of the fullness of the faith of the Fathers, and that is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

As to our charitable obligations, I never once denied that we Christians have any--I spoke of Matthew 25, while you spoke of Matthew 22--so I really don't disagree with your statements on this matter.

[ozgeorge]

Interesting that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers (forcefully removed from their contexts) to lecture Orthodox Christians on what he perceives to be their charitable obligations.

I'm not sure why this should be an issue. I don't think Bogoliubtsy was lecturing anyone. And don't Christians have charitable obligations? Christian praxis stems from The Two Great Commandments which are nothing other than our obligations to love God and love our neighbour as our self;-and everyone, Christian or non-Christian, knows this is the requirement of our Faith, so even an Atheist is able to keep us honest.

But to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers to communicate a message they may not have intended implies a knowledge of the Fathers that may, in fact, not exist.  If, for instance, Bogoliubtsy had decided to express his message in a way that didn't involve a distortion of the doctrines of the Fathers, I would have probably responded differently.  For one to use the Fathers to effectively communicate a message to those who follow after the Fathers, one should probably speak from the foundation of the fullness of the faith of the Fathers, and that is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

As to our charitable obligations, I never once denied that we Christians have any--I spoke of Matthew 25, while you spoke of Matthew 22--so I really don't disagree with your statements on this matter.

What I was actually asking is what difference it makes to this thread "that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts..." Not that I'm even sure that Bogoliubsty denies the bodily Resurrection, but even if he did, what difference does it make?

[Bogoliubtsy]

If I may chime in here 

I concluded the recent thread on the historicity of the resurrection by stating that I have much to think about, or something to that effect. Like most, my ideas are not static, but are prone to change when challenged with new information, new insights, and new understandings.  Though I may have argued against the believability of the physical resurrection, I did not argue that I do not believe in a resurrection. Though I do not yet know whether I accept, or will come to accept, an actual physical, flesh and blood resurrection, I do not see how my personal, mental affirmation of this event has much bearing on whether or not I am capable of presenting a few timely and tough selections from the Church Fathers on the subject of poverty and wealth.

[deusveritasest]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

[deusveritasest]

These Fathers sure sound like bleeding heart liberals. 

For realz.

[Irish Hermit]

^ These are great endeavors - absolutely. But, as a whole, the Church seems lacking in ministry to the poor in comparison to the emphasis given to this task by other churches. And, even if we are "doing our best", so to speak, there is always more to do in a world where the gap between obscene wealth and poverty is growing greater every day. Perhaps it's something like repentance- can we ever be satisfied and say, "we're doing enough" ?

So 'fess up.  What are you doing in your parish?  What are you doing personally out there is the world of the needy and the desparate?   Three of our boys help out at the Catholic nuns' soup kitchen.   One of our ladies, an accountant, does the books for the Cancer Society for free - that sort of stuff.  You...?  Your parish?

I don't think it's proper to toot one's own horn in this respect, anymore than it's wise to boast of fasting. However, I've worked in homeless shelters, tutored inner city kids, volunteered at my former parish's "food pantry", as well as being involved with organizations that work for more systemic changes in society that will alleviate poverty.  This type of organizational involvement that challenges the structures that create poverty takes up more of my time. I currently don't have a parish, but am hoping, when time permits, to begin helping out in the local Salvation Army and/or Episcopal Church's soup kitchen down the block from me.

May God bless you richly for your love for His needy people.

[ozgeorge]

^ These are great endeavors - absolutely. But, as a whole, the Church seems lacking in ministry to the poor in comparison to the emphasis given to this task by other churches. And, even if we are "doing our best", so to speak, there is always more to do in a world where the gap between obscene wealth and poverty is growing greater every day. Perhaps it's something like repentance- can we ever be satisfied and say, "we're doing enough" ?

So 'fess up.  What are you doing in your parish?  What are you doing personally out there is the world of the needy and the desparate?   Three of our boys help out at the Catholic nuns' soup kitchen.   One of our ladies, an accountant, does the books for the Cancer Society for free - that sort of stuff.  You...?  Your parish?

I don't think it's proper to toot one's own horn in this respect, anymore than it's wise to boast of fasting. However, I've worked in homeless shelters, tutored inner city kids, volunteered at my former parish's "food pantry", as well as being involved with organizations that work for more systemic changes in society that will alleviate poverty.  This type of organizational involvement that challenges the structures that create poverty takes up more of my time. I currently don't have a parish, but am hoping, when time permits, to begin helping out in the local Salvation Army and/or Episcopal Church's soup kitchen down the block from me.

May God bless you richly for your love for His needy people.

Gracious! You sure run hot and cold Irish Hermit.

[Irish Hermit]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics. 

[Irish Hermit]

^ These are great endeavors - absolutely. But, as a whole, the Church seems lacking in ministry to the poor in comparison to the emphasis given to this task by other churches. And, even if we are "doing our best", so to speak, there is always more to do in a world where the gap between obscene wealth and poverty is growing greater every day. Perhaps it's something like repentance- can we ever be satisfied and say, "we're doing enough" ?

So 'fess up.  What are you doing in your parish?  What are you doing personally out there is the world of the needy and the desparate?   Three of our boys help out at the Catholic nuns' soup kitchen.   One of our ladies, an accountant, does the books for the Cancer Society for free - that sort of stuff.  You...?  Your parish?

I don't think it's proper to toot one's own horn in this respect, anymore than it's wise to boast of fasting. However, I've worked in homeless shelters, tutored inner city kids, volunteered at my former parish's "food pantry", as well as being involved with organizations that work for more systemic changes in society that will alleviate poverty.  This type of organizational involvement that challenges the structures that create poverty takes up more of my time. I currently don't have a parish, but am hoping, when time permits, to begin helping out in the local Salvation Army and/or Episcopal Church's soup kitchen down the block from me.

May God bless you richly for your love for His needy people.

Gracious! You sure run hot and cold Irish Hermit.

We had all assumed, I think, that Bogo was an armchair philanthropist with his words about assisting the poor.   When he told us of his hands-on involvement I thought that it needed some acknowledgement.  Why is that "running hot and cold"?  Indeed I wish to apologise for misjudging him earlier.

[ialmisry]

Interesting that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers (forcefully removed from their contexts) to lecture Orthodox Christians on what he perceives to be their charitable obligations.

I'm not sure why this should be an issue. I don't think Bogoliubtsy was lecturing anyone. And don't Christians have charitable obligations? Christian praxis stems from The Two Great Commandments which are nothing other than our obligations to love God and love our neighbour as our self;-and everyone, Christian or non-Christian, knows this is the requirement of our Faith, so even an Atheist is able to keep us honest.

But to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers to communicate a message they may not have intended implies a knowledge of the Fathers that may, in fact, not exist.  If, for instance, Bogoliubtsy had decided to express his message in a way that didn't involve a distortion of the doctrines of the Fathers, I would have probably responded differently.  For one to use the Fathers to effectively communicate a message to those who follow after the Fathers, one should probably speak from the foundation of the fullness of the faith of the Fathers, and that is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

As to our charitable obligations, I never once denied that we Christians have any--I spoke of Matthew 25, while you spoke of Matthew 22--so I really don't disagree with your statements on this matter.

What I was actually asking is what difference it makes to this thread "that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts..." Not that I'm even sure that Bogoliubsty denies the bodily Resurrection, but even if he did, what difference does it make?

You can take a number of quotes of the Fathers which, wretched out of their context, deny the Divinity of Christ.  Muslims make such lists all the time, and every time I see one I look at their motive, because it is not an exercise in Patristics, but a denial of the Fathers.

[deusveritasest]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics. 

You seemed to suggest, in a general sense, that the body (which includes the bones) is no longer part of a person's subsistence after death.

[Irish Hermit]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics. 

You seemed to suggest, in a general sense, that the body (which includes the bones) is no longer part of a person's subsistence after death.

I think we are not quite on the same page.  I thought we were speaking of the decay of the flesh and bodily organs after death?   How do you see that process as being part of the body's subsistence after death?

[deusveritasest]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics. 

You seemed to suggest, in a general sense, that the body (which includes the bones) is no longer part of a person's subsistence after death.

I think we are not quite on the same page.  I thought we were speaking of the decay of the flesh and bodily organs after death?   How do you see that process as being part of the body's subsistence after death?

OK, let's try to work through this another way.

If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?

[Irish Hermit]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics.  

You seemed to suggest, in a general sense, that the body (which includes the bones) is no longer part of a person's subsistence after death.

I think we are not quite on the same page.  I thought we were speaking of the decay of the flesh and bodily organs after death?   How do you see that process as being part of the body's subsistence after death?

OK, let's try to work through this another way.

If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?

The body of the Lord was not subject to corruption after death.

In the grave with the body
in Hell with the soul as God
in Paradise with the thief
and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit
wast Thou, O Christ,  Who fillest all things
and art Thyself uncontainable.

Would you define what you mean by "subsistence after death" for the body.  I think that may be our mutual lack of understanding.

[deusveritasest]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics.  

You seemed to suggest, in a general sense, that the body (which includes the bones) is no longer part of a person's subsistence after death.

I think we are not quite on the same page.  I thought we were speaking of the decay of the flesh and bodily organs after death?   How do you see that process as being part of the body's subsistence after death?

OK, let's try to work through this another way.

If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?

The body of the Lord was not subject to corruption after death.

In the grave with the body
in Hell with the soul as God
in Paradise with the thief
and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit
wast Thou, O Christ,  Who fillest all things
and art Thyself uncontainable.

Would you define what you mean by "subsistence after death" for the body.  I think that may be our mutual lack of understanding.

The fact that His body was not subject to decay is not all that relevant to my question. You indicated that when the soul leaves the body that the body ceases to be part of one's subsistence: "with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence". So then my question still applies:

"If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?"

[Irish Hermit]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics.  

You seemed to suggest, in a general sense, that the body (which includes the bones) is no longer part of a person's subsistence after death.

I think we are not quite on the same page.  I thought we were speaking of the decay of the flesh and bodily organs after death?   How do you see that process as being part of the body's subsistence after death?

OK, let's try to work through this another way.

If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?

The body of the Lord was not subject to corruption after death.

In the grave with the body
in Hell with the soul as God
in Paradise with the thief
and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit
wast Thou, O Christ,  Who fillest all things
and art Thyself uncontainable.

Would you define what you mean by "subsistence after death" for the body.  I think that may be our mutual lack of understanding.

The fact that His body was not subject to decay is not all that relevant to my question. You indicated that when the soul leaves the body that the body ceases to be part of one's subsistence: "with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence". So then my question still applies:

"If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?"

Because He had this fanciful idea that He was going to bring His body back to life about 30 hours later?

Again, you need to define "subsistence." 

[deusveritasest]

Property is theft.

- St. Basil the Great

Taking your heart (your property) to the grave with you when it could be used to save the life of a brother or sister - is that theft?

One is part of one's subsistence. One is not. The question is a poor one because it doesn't realize this key difference.

It has not been taken into account that with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence.  They are dead and already beginning the process of decay.

Such a notion seems to render the veneration of relics preposterous.

How so?  If trhe heart or the liver of someone who is later venerated as a Saint is donated at death to another brother or sister, why would that render the veneration of his relics preposterous?    For example, do we have the heart and liver of Saint John the Baptist for veneration?  No, we don't but the veneration of his head and his arm is not rendered preposterous thereby.

It appears that you didn't understand my criticism. I wasn't speaking of donating organs at all. What I was saying is that your notion that the body ceases to be part of our subsistence after the soul leaves it would appear to render veneration of relics preposterous. Why should we direct veneration towards someone through something that is supposedly no longer part of their subsistence?

I am still not on the same page as you.  Generally speaking the flesh and the body's organs (the hearts and livers, etc.) of the Saints decay and dissolve just as any other mortals.  What we are left for veneration is bone relics.  

You seemed to suggest, in a general sense, that the body (which includes the bones) is no longer part of a person's subsistence after death.

I think we are not quite on the same page.  I thought we were speaking of the decay of the flesh and bodily organs after death?   How do you see that process as being part of the body's subsistence after death?

OK, let's try to work through this another way.

If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?

The body of the Lord was not subject to corruption after death.

In the grave with the body
in Hell with the soul as God
in Paradise with the thief
and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit
wast Thou, O Christ,  Who fillest all things
and art Thyself uncontainable.

Would you define what you mean by "subsistence after death" for the body.  I think that may be our mutual lack of understanding.

The fact that His body was not subject to decay is not all that relevant to my question. You indicated that when the soul leaves the body that the body ceases to be part of one's subsistence: "with the departure of the soul from the body organs cease to be part of one's subsistence". So then my question still applies:

"If the body is not part of a human's subsistence after death, then why did the Logos stay with His flesh after He died rather than just His soul?"

Because He had this fanciful idea that He was going to bring His body back to life about 30 hours later?

Again, you need to define "subsistence." 

So you think that the Godhead remained with the body only because of the Resurrection?

I don't see how that sufficiently explains it. The divinity could very well have only remained with the soul, and then three days later the soul could return to the body (as it did anyway) and both the soul and the divinity would be united to the restored body.

I am understanding subsistence to refer to the existing of a person in certain concrete and individuated elements (blood, flesh, spirit, divinity, etc.).

[Irish Hermit]

The destruction of ties, and the overthrow of nature's laws of union and of the whole corporal structure, cause me anguish and distress intolerable.

...This destructible bond, which as the God of our fathers thou hadst sanctified by thy divine will, should be dissolved, and that his body should be dissolved into the elements from which it was fashioned......

Office at the Parting of the Soul from the Body

-oOo-

I weep and wail when I think upon death, and behold our beauty, fashioned after the image of God, lying in the tomb, disfigured, dishonoured, bereft of form.  O Marvel!  What is this mystery which doth befall us?  Why have we been given over to corruption, and why have we been wedded unto death?

Let us go forth and gaze into the tombs, for man is naked bones, food for the worms, and stench..

Now is life's artful triumph of vanities destroyed.  For the spirit hath vanished from its tabernacle; its clay groweth black.  The vessel is shattered, voiceless, bereft of feeling, motionless, dead.  Dissolved in the grave by decay, by worms in the darkness consumed....

From the Funeral Service.... There is more but I am a slow two-finger typist.

[deusveritasest]

....

I'm trying to figure out how that ties into our conversation.

[Irish Hermit]

....

I'm trying to figure out how that ties into our conversation.

Think intuitively... listen to the Spirit.... let the logical side of your brain have a rest for the moment.   

[PeterTheAleut]

More political posts moved to Politics:  Hard sayings of the Fathers or prooftexting for Marx?

If you wish to talk about our responsibility as Christians to care for the poor, then this public thread is the place for that discussion.  If you want to talk about communism, socialism, Republicanism, or other such politico-economic theories, then please post your comments on the private Politics thread.  Do not post politics on the Public Forum.  Anyone who violates this rule by bringing up any of the aforementioned politico-economic theories on this public thread after I post this general directive will receive a formal warning.

[deusveritasest]

....

I'm trying to figure out how that ties into our conversation.

Think intuitively... listen to the Spirit.... let the logical side of your brain have a rest for the moment.   

Well, to put it very simply, I wanted to preserve the point that our body, in so far as it does not decay, does not cease to remain a part of who we are after our soul departs from it.

[ozgeorge]

Interesting that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers (forcefully removed from their contexts) to lecture Orthodox Christians on what he perceives to be their charitable obligations.

I'm not sure why this should be an issue. I don't think Bogoliubtsy was lecturing anyone. And don't Christians have charitable obligations? Christian praxis stems from The Two Great Commandments which are nothing other than our obligations to love God and love our neighbour as our self;-and everyone, Christian or non-Christian, knows this is the requirement of our Faith, so even an Atheist is able to keep us honest.

But to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers to communicate a message they may not have intended implies a knowledge of the Fathers that may, in fact, not exist.  If, for instance, Bogoliubtsy had decided to express his message in a way that didn't involve a distortion of the doctrines of the Fathers, I would have probably responded differently.  For one to use the Fathers to effectively communicate a message to those who follow after the Fathers, one should probably speak from the foundation of the fullness of the faith of the Fathers, and that is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

As to our charitable obligations, I never once denied that we Christians have any--I spoke of Matthew 25, while you spoke of Matthew 22--so I really don't disagree with your statements on this matter.

What I was actually asking is what difference it makes to this thread "that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts..." Not that I'm even sure that Bogoliubsty denies the bodily Resurrection, but even if he did, what difference does it make?

You can take a number of quotes of the Fathers which, wretched out of their context, deny the Divinity of Christ.  Muslims make such lists all the time, and every time I see one I look at their motive, because it is not an exercise in Patristics, but a denial of the Fathers.

Let me get this straight. Because Peter questions Bogoliubsty's belief in the bodily Resurrection that means that he is taking the Fathers out of context. Out of what "context" is he taking the Fathers? Can you show that each of the quotes Bologliubsty provided have no bearing on Christian praxis? Even the notion that they apply only to monastics does not make sense from an Orthodox Christian point of view, since an Orthodox monastery is a Community striving to live Orthodox Christianity. Sure, we are not all monks, but monasticism is not something separate to the Church, nor even alien to it. Monasticism is the Gospel life, not something "alternate" to the Gospel life.

[ialmisry]

Interesting that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers (forcefully removed from their contexts) to lecture Orthodox Christians on what he perceives to be their charitable obligations.

I'm not sure why this should be an issue. I don't think Bogoliubtsy was lecturing anyone. And don't Christians have charitable obligations? Christian praxis stems from The Two Great Commandments which are nothing other than our obligations to love God and love our neighbour as our self;-and everyone, Christian or non-Christian, knows this is the requirement of our Faith, so even an Atheist is able to keep us honest.

But to use a list of proof texts from the Fathers to communicate a message they may not have intended implies a knowledge of the Fathers that may, in fact, not exist.  If, for instance, Bogoliubtsy had decided to express his message in a way that didn't involve a distortion of the doctrines of the Fathers, I would have probably responded differently.  For one to use the Fathers to effectively communicate a message to those who follow after the Fathers, one should probably speak from the foundation of the fullness of the faith of the Fathers, and that is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

As to our charitable obligations, I never once denied that we Christians have any--I spoke of Matthew 25, while you spoke of Matthew 22--so I really don't disagree with your statements on this matter.

What I was actually asking is what difference it makes to this thread "that someone who denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, the single most important doctrine of the Christian faith, would presume to use a list of proof texts..." Not that I'm even sure that Bogoliubsty denies the bodily Resurrection, but even if he did, what difference does it make?

You can take a number of quotes of the Fathers which, wretched out of their context, deny the Divinity of Christ.  Muslims make such lists all the time, and every time I see one I look at their motive, because it is not an exercise in Patristics, but a denial of the Fathers.

Let me get this straight. Because Peter questions Bogoliubsty's belief in the bodily Resurrection that means that he is taking the Fathers out of context.

Let me get this straight. You think Peter is taking the Fathers out of context?

Out of what "context" is he taking the Fathers? Can you show that each of the quotes Bologliubsty provided have no bearing on Christian praxis?

I can show a counter quote that contradicts the agenda for which Bogoliubsky is putting them to use.

Even the notion that they apply only to monastics does not make sense from an Orthodox Christian point of view, since an Orthodox monastery is a Community striving to live Orthodox Christianity. Sure, we are not all monks, but monasticism is not something separate to the Church, nor even alien to it. Monasticism is the Gospel life, not something "alternate" to the Gospel life.

But it is not "one size fits all" which is a problem that manifests itself, for instance, when you mix monastic spirituality with married life as if they lived on Mt. Athos.  A monk doesn't need possessions: it is irresponsible for a husband and father not to have them.

[Tzimis]

....

I'm trying to figure out how that ties into our conversation.

Think intuitively... listen to the Spirit.... let the logical side of your brain have a rest for the moment.   

What exactly do you mean father. Logos also means reason. 

[serb1389]

I've never known a "diehard" Orthodox Christian who spends hours and hours on an Orthodox forum to have a flippant response to his own Church Fathers.

 Tell us, then, the point of choosing these particular sayings?  What lesson are you trying to impart?  Looks to me like you got called out.  

They are hard sayings because they relate to a much overlooked issue within the Orthodox world- the Church's relationship, and responsibility to, the poor. The point is to show, in part, the difficulty of living the Gospel and to highlight the shortcomings of the Orthodox world in this respect. If I had taken some abortion and/or sex related "hard sayings", maybe that would have gone over better. 

It is "and" not "or."

Ah, yes. Now I've got your interest. Of course. The poor? Injustice? That's not your speed.

Mathew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

http://kingjbible.com/matthew/7.htm

Put your money where your mouth is.   

I'm a hypocrite because I brought up the fact that Christians should pay attention to the poor? Or that issues of sexuality (minimally mentioned in the NT) seem to take precedence among many Christians?   

Put my money where my mouth is?  How do you know what I do with my money?  I'd also like to point out that these fathers castigate the RICH. I am not rich.

How you see Christ speaking to you is definitely YOUR business and not MINE. But since you're asking ME the question, you're a hypocrite because you should be worried about the log that's in your eye instead of the speck that is in anyone else's.  If you were preocupied with the log, tried to cut down the log, and realize the log is a log in your eye (which I can only assume is a huge problem), then the very nature of your post would be mitigated instantaneously.

The fathers you quoted are castigating the rich...sure...and i'm just going to leave that comment to those who have already tackled it:

I posted quotes from the fathers on the rich and poor, and expressed my view that the Church does not do enough to help the poor, and that calls for telling me to take a look at the log in my own eye?  If I had put up some typical quotes about not judging, or fasting, or some sexually related matter, all would most likely be well here. 

Where is the HYPOCRISY in posting quotes from the fathers on wealth and poverty?

You know what...I tried to make a point, it obviously didn't happen, for me to pursue it any longer would just be belligerent [enter inappropriate word here]

[ozgeorge]

Even the notion that they apply only to monastics does not make sense from an Orthodox Christian point of view, since an Orthodox monastery is a Community striving to live Orthodox Christianity. Sure, we are not all monks, but monasticism is not something separate to the Church, nor even alien to it. Monasticism is the Gospel life, not something "alternate" to the Gospel life.

But it is not "one size fits all" which is a problem that manifests itself, for instance, when you mix monastic spirituality with married life as if they lived on Mt. Athos.  A monk doesn't need possessions: it is irresponsible for a husband and father not to have them.

Which quote from the Fathers which Bogoliubsty provided urges Christian husbands and fathers (or male monastics for that matter) to have no possessions?

[Iconodule]

Even the notion that they apply only to monastics does not make sense from an Orthodox Christian point of view, since an Orthodox monastery is a Community striving to live Orthodox Christianity. Sure, we are not all monks, but monasticism is not something separate to the Church, nor even alien to it. Monasticism is the Gospel life, not something "alternate" to the Gospel life.

But it is not "one size fits all" which is a problem that manifests itself, for instance, when you mix monastic spirituality with married life as if they lived on Mt. Athos.  A monk doesn't need possessions: it is irresponsible for a husband and father not to have them.

Which quote from the Fathers which Bogoliubsty provided urges Christian husbands and fathers (or male monastics for that matter) to have no possessions?

Some people confuse property with personal possessions.

[GammaRay]

Okay, I think I might have found the original source of St. Basil's quotation.
Wikipedia says that it's in Ascetics, 34:1-2, which I found in the Prolegomena section.
[On-line at CCEL]

Q: “Ought any one to be allowed to exercise abstinence beyond his strength, so that he is hindered in the performance of his duty?”

A: “This question does not seem to me to be properly worded.  Temperance does not consist in abstinence from earthly food, wherein lies the ‘neglecting of the body’ condemned by the Apostles, but in complete departure from one’s own wishes.  And how great is the danger of our falling away from the Lord’s commandment on account of our own wishes is clear from the words of the Apostle, ‘fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath.’ The numbers in the Cœnobium are not to fall below ten, the number of the eaters of the Paschal supper.” Nothing is to be considered individual and personal property. Even a man’s thoughts are not his own. Private friendships are harmful to the general interests of the community. At meals there is to be a reading, which is to be thought more of than mere material food. The cultivation of the ground is the most suitable occupation for the ascetic life. No fees are to be taken for the charge of children entrusted to the monks. Such children are not to be pledged to join the community till they are old enough to understand what they are about.

[ialmisry]

Okay, I think I might have found the original source of St. Basil's quotation.
Wikipedia says that it's in Ascetics, 34:1-2, which I found in the Prolegomena section.
[On-line at CCEL]

Q: “Ought any one to be allowed to exercise abstinence beyond his strength, so that he is hindered in the performance of his duty?”

A: “This question does not seem to me to be properly worded.  Temperance does not consist in abstinence from earthly food, wherein lies the ‘neglecting of the body’ condemned by the Apostles, but in complete departure from one’s own wishes.  And how great is the danger of our falling away from the Lord’s commandment on account of our own wishes is clear from the words of the Apostle, ‘fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath.’ The numbers in the Cœnobium are not to fall below ten, the number of the eaters of the Paschal supper.”   Nothing is to be considered individual and personal property.  Even a man’s thoughts are not his own. Private friendships are harmful to the general interests of the community. At meals there is to be a reading, which is to be thought more of than mere material food. The cultivation of the ground is the most suitable occupation for the ascetic life. No fees are to be taken for the charge of children entrusted to the monks. Such children are not to be pledged to join the community till they are old enough to understand what they are about.

Interesting how this one wasn't posted in the original list.