Topic: What happens in a Roman Catholic Eucharist?

[jnorm888]

Papist,


I am thinking about not calling you guys ""Roman Catholic"". Why? Because we are the real Roman Catholics! We are Orthodox Roman Catholics. You guys are Frankish Catholics.

And so I am wondering if I should always refer to the communion of the Bishop of Rome as "Frankish Catholics"?

I don't know? I still may use the term "Roman Catholic" for you guys only because most Americans probably never heard of the term "Frankish Catholics" before.









ICXC NIKA

[Irish Hermit]

Pope Gelasius wrote:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

Notice how clear he is with this teaching - the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to exist.

Again though I have to say that this is really not crucially important to the Orthodox.  He may be right.  He may be wrong.  Of course by Catholic lights he is a Pope who taught what is now heresy.

Fr Ambrose

I wonder what  he meant by "substance". Things are not always what they seem.

Because of the Monophysite controversy this holy Pope was super sensitive to the meaning of substance and nature...

http://www.justforcatholics.org/06.08.pdf

[Papist]

Pope Gelasius wrote:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

Notice how clear he is with this teaching - the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to exist.

Again though I have to say that this is really not crucially important to the Orthodox.  He may be right.  He may be wrong.  Of course by Catholic lights he is a Pope who taught what is now heresy.

Fr Ambrose

I wonder what  he meant by "substance". Things are not always what they seem.

Because of the Monophysite controversy this holy Pope was super sensitive to the meaning of substance and nature...

http://www.justforcatholics.org/06.08.pdf

Thanks Father. This doesn't look like a very scholarly essay, so I will have to look into this further.

[Papist]

Papist,


I am thinking about not calling you guys ""Roman Catholic"". Why? Because we are the real Roman Catholics! We are Orthodox Roman Catholics. You guys are Frankish Catholics.

And so I am wondering if I should always refer to the communion of the Bishop of Rome as "Frankish Catholics"?

I don't know? I still may use the term "Roman Catholic" for you guys only because most Americans probably never heard of the term "Frankish Catholics" before.









ICXC NIKA

Haha. Do you realize how silly this post sounds to anyone who may come across it?  Well, you go with it bro.
BTW, our Pope is the Pope of Rome. Just saying.

[Wyatt]

WetCathecumen,
I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious


ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Other Orthodox Christians on this forum/thread already mentioned what our view is in regards to that synod. You can't just dismiss what they said about.......especially when what they had to say was true.

ICXC NIKA

Look, just because many modern EOs interprate their faith in light of "that which is not Latin" does not mean that this was always the attitude of the EO Church. You know very well that the Synod of Jerusalem was considered dogmatic. If its is not longer so, then you have changed your faith.

I don't think you understand what dogmatic means in the Orthodox Church... We have only had 7 Ecumenical Councils (there are a couple that might also classify as Ecumenical), and therefore only those seven councils are "dogmatic" and universal. Whereas other synods/councils since then are not considered Ecumenical, though many have reinforced the Orthodox faith.

It is well known that at a point, the Greek Church was strongly influenced by the Latin West, at one time even offering indulgences. However, I'm sure as you know, one Church doesn't represent all of Orthodoxy. Even if one Synod/Council says something not quite so Orthodox, that doesn't mean the synod changed anything.

You know darn well that Orthodox have never (as a whole) endorsed transubstantiation, original sin etc... Even if our Bishops err and make mistakes, that doesn't mean squat because the whole Church hasn't agreed with them. The Church is balanced between the Bishops, the Clergy, the Monastics and the Laity. No one group has supreme power, and if one group errs, it's the job of the others to bring them back to the truth. Even if the Council of Jerusalem included all Bishops (or representatives of all Bishops), that still doesn't make it Ecumenical or universal. Same for the Robber Council of Florence. It had representations from nearly all Orthodox Churches, including prominent political members of the Eastern Empire. Yet it was a false council.

Again, just because a few Orthodox may recognize everything from the Council of Jerusalem, that doesn't mean it's ecumenical. What makes a Council Ecumenical is universal recognition of the Council and it's declarations/canons.

Hello.

I have been reading this entire thread and find it quite interesting, and this post specifically raises a question in my mind. How do the Orthodox go about determining whether a Council is Ecumenical? In the Orthodox view, can there ever be other Ecumenical Councils after the first seven, or are those the only ones that will ever be recognized as such?

[PeterTheAleut]

WetCathecumen,
I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious


ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Other Orthodox Christians on this forum/thread already mentioned what our view is in regards to that synod. You can't just dismiss what they said about.......especially when what they had to say was true.

ICXC NIKA

Look, just because many modern EOs interprate their faith in light of "that which is not Latin" does not mean that this was always the attitude of the EO Church. You know very well that the Synod of Jerusalem was considered dogmatic. If its is not longer so, then you have changed your faith.

I don't think you understand what dogmatic means in the Orthodox Church... We have only had 7 Ecumenical Councils (there are a couple that might also classify as Ecumenical), and therefore only those seven councils are "dogmatic" and universal. Whereas other synods/councils since then are not considered Ecumenical, though many have reinforced the Orthodox faith.

It is well known that at a point, the Greek Church was strongly influenced by the Latin West, at one time even offering indulgences. However, I'm sure as you know, one Church doesn't represent all of Orthodoxy. Even if one Synod/Council says something not quite so Orthodox, that doesn't mean the synod changed anything.

You know darn well that Orthodox have never (as a whole) endorsed transubstantiation, original sin etc... Even if our Bishops err and make mistakes, that doesn't mean squat because the whole Church hasn't agreed with them. The Church is balanced between the Bishops, the Clergy, the Monastics and the Laity. No one group has supreme power, and if one group errs, it's the job of the others to bring them back to the truth. Even if the Council of Jerusalem included all Bishops (or representatives of all Bishops), that still doesn't make it Ecumenical or universal. Same for the Robber Council of Florence. It had representations from nearly all Orthodox Churches, including prominent political members of the Eastern Empire. Yet it was a false council.

Again, just because a few Orthodox may recognize everything from the Council of Jerusalem, that doesn't mean it's ecumenical. What makes a Council Ecumenical is universal recognition of the Council and it's declarations/canons.

Hello.

I have been reading this entire thread and find it quite interesting, and this post specifically raises a question in my mind. How do the Orthodox go about determining whether a Council is Ecumenical? In the Orthodox view, can there ever be other Ecumenical Councils after the first seven, or are those the only ones that will ever be recognized as such?

Welcome to the forum, Wyatt.   You may find the answers you seek by clicking the following link to a discussion we hosted recently on this subject:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27053.0.html

[Wyatt]

WetCathecumen,
I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious


ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Other Orthodox Christians on this forum/thread already mentioned what our view is in regards to that synod. You can't just dismiss what they said about.......especially when what they had to say was true.

ICXC NIKA

Look, just because many modern EOs interprate their faith in light of "that which is not Latin" does not mean that this was always the attitude of the EO Church. You know very well that the Synod of Jerusalem was considered dogmatic. If its is not longer so, then you have changed your faith.

I don't think you understand what dogmatic means in the Orthodox Church... We have only had 7 Ecumenical Councils (there are a couple that might also classify as Ecumenical), and therefore only those seven councils are "dogmatic" and universal. Whereas other synods/councils since then are not considered Ecumenical, though many have reinforced the Orthodox faith.

It is well known that at a point, the Greek Church was strongly influenced by the Latin West, at one time even offering indulgences. However, I'm sure as you know, one Church doesn't represent all of Orthodoxy. Even if one Synod/Council says something not quite so Orthodox, that doesn't mean the synod changed anything.

You know darn well that Orthodox have never (as a whole) endorsed transubstantiation, original sin etc... Even if our Bishops err and make mistakes, that doesn't mean squat because the whole Church hasn't agreed with them. The Church is balanced between the Bishops, the Clergy, the Monastics and the Laity. No one group has supreme power, and if one group errs, it's the job of the others to bring them back to the truth. Even if the Council of Jerusalem included all Bishops (or representatives of all Bishops), that still doesn't make it Ecumenical or universal. Same for the Robber Council of Florence. It had representations from nearly all Orthodox Churches, including prominent political members of the Eastern Empire. Yet it was a false council.

Again, just because a few Orthodox may recognize everything from the Council of Jerusalem, that doesn't mean it's ecumenical. What makes a Council Ecumenical is universal recognition of the Council and it's declarations/canons.

Hello.

I have been reading this entire thread and find it quite interesting, and this post specifically raises a question in my mind. How do the Orthodox go about determining whether a Council is Ecumenical? In the Orthodox view, can there ever be other Ecumenical Councils after the first seven, or are those the only ones that will ever be recognized as such?

Welcome to the forum, Wyatt.   You may find the answers you seek by clicking the following link to a discussion we hosted recently on this subject:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27053.0.html

Thank you for the warm welcome, and thanks for pointing out that thread. It is very informative.