OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 11:51:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A Question For Catholics: Sacraments and "Intent"  (Read 4419 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075



« on: July 06, 2012, 12:52:17 AM »

As I understand it, a precondition in Catholic theology for a sacrament to be valid is that the one performing the sacrament must have the correct intent. In the case of baptism, it is said, even an atheist can perform it if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intent. My question is twofold:

1. How can the faithful know the intent of the clergy? What if a few hundred years ago some bishop didn't really intend to consecrate another bishop? Does that mean the second wasn't really a bishop? Does it mean the priests he ordained could not perform valid sacraments? That could be a lot of priests by today.

2. How can a person who doesn't believe in sacramental grace at all have the intent to bestow that grace on another person?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 12:52:36 AM by OrthoNoob » Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2012, 04:34:13 AM »

As I understand it, a precondition in Catholic theology for a sacrament to be valid is that the one performing the sacrament must have the correct intent. In the case of baptism, it is said, even an atheist can perform it if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intent. My question is twofold:

1. How can the faithful know the intent of the clergy? What if a few hundred years ago some bishop didn't really intend to consecrate another bishop? Does that mean the second wasn't really a bishop? Does it mean the priests he ordained could not perform valid sacraments? That could be a lot of priests by today.

2. How can a person who doesn't believe in sacramental grace at all have the intent to bestow that grace on another person?

I JUST had this conversation with a Roman seminarian on Tuesday night. He insisted that a priest at the altar who does everything visibly but privately says to himself, "I intend NOT to consecrate this" although he says the consecration aloud and to all others it appears he is, then the Mass is invalid and the gifts remain only common bread and wine. I insisted that the priest's visible and external intent forces an internal intent - like trying to say, "I refuse to consummate this marriage" to yourself during the first intercourse with your wife. Obviously, the marriage is being consummated. Now, if you want to fail to consummate the marriage, you can refuse to do so or even substitute it with some perversion, but the act of it is done and in that, the actual intent is revealed, regardless of the pretended intent.

I don't think a non-believing priest, who is acting as Christ and on behalf of the Church, can cause a sacrament not to happen by pretending to himself he does not will it to happen as long as he acts publicly as if it is. A sacrament is, after all, an external manifestation of an inward grace. He may desire to thwart the Holy Spirit, but as long as he does not make that intent clear, his intent to do what the Church does is presumed.

I asked my Byzantine priest and he said that's a very Roman question, and in the East we wouldn't even think about why a priest would do such a thing. He also agreed with me that even if a priest were pretending to himself that he privately intended for a sacrament not to happen, it would still happen because visibly and publicly he is acting on the Church's behalf.

So that's the answer as far as I can tell. Although, if the priest spends the homily talking about how he doesn't believe in the Real Presence, and says, when I say the words nothing happens, then you can be sure that it's not a valid Mass, because he obviously and openly doesn't intend to consecrate it and is no longer doing what the Church intends. However, sacraments are presumed valid unless opposing evidence is presented - so a "private" intention not to consecrate can't really happen.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2012, 05:27:01 AM »

As I understand it, a precondition in Catholic theology for a sacrament to be valid is that the one performing the sacrament must have the correct intent. In the case of baptism, it is said, even an atheist can perform it if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intent. My question is twofold:

1. How can the faithful know the intent of the clergy? What if a few hundred years ago some bishop didn't really intend to consecrate another bishop? Does that mean the second wasn't really a bishop? Does it mean the priests he ordained could not perform valid sacraments? That could be a lot of priests by today.

2. How can a person who doesn't believe in sacramental grace at all have the intent to bestow that grace on another person?
.
I've been told before that intent is more of an institutional thing, so that if an individual pastor is performing a sacrament but with improper intent, the sacrament is still valid so long as the institution has proper intent, and that if the pastor has proper intent, but the organization does not, then the sacrament is invalid. The concept seems like a completely nonsensical way to approach the sacraments, as it turns them into seven magic spells based on having proper form and intent (except for marriage apparently, as even a non Roman Catholic couple can cast the marriage spell on each other with the assistance of a justice of the peace, even if they lack proper form and intent) rather than seven mysteries.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 05:35:53 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Babalon
Resident Occultist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnosis
Jurisdiction: A.'.A.'.
Posts: 233


I am everywhere the centre.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2012, 05:38:40 AM »

Smells like witchcraft.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2012, 08:39:24 AM »

As I understand it, a precondition in Catholic theology for a sacrament to be valid is that the one performing the sacrament must have the correct intent. In the case of baptism, it is said, even an atheist can perform it if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intent. My question is twofold:

1. How can the faithful know the intent of the clergy? What if a few hundred years ago some bishop didn't really intend to consecrate another bishop? Does that mean the second wasn't really a bishop? Does it mean the priests he ordained could not perform valid sacraments? That could be a lot of priests by today.

2. How can a person who doesn't believe in sacramental grace at all have the intent to bestow that grace on another person?
.
I've been told before that intent is more of an institutional thing, so that if an individual pastor is performing a sacrament but with improper intent, the sacrament is still valid so long as the institution has proper intent, and that if the pastor has proper intent, but the organization does not, then the sacrament is invalid. The concept seems like a completely nonsensical way to approach the sacraments, as it turns them into seven magic spells based on having proper form and intent (except for marriage apparently, as even a non Roman Catholic couple can cast the marriage spell on each other with the assistance of a justice of the peace, even if they lack proper form and intent) rather than seven mysteries.

I don't know the answers to all questions about intent (and the  difficulties Rome has gotten herself into in connection with intent), but it certainly doesn't turn the sacraments into magic spells. Rather, it prevents it from being just a question of saying "the right words".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2012, 10:38:52 AM »

As I understand it, a precondition in Catholic theology for a sacrament to be valid is that the one performing the sacrament must have the correct intent. In the case of baptism, it is said, even an atheist can perform it if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intent. My question is twofold:

1. How can the faithful know the intent of the clergy? What if a few hundred years ago some bishop didn't really intend to consecrate another bishop? Does that mean the second wasn't really a bishop? Does it mean the priests he ordained could not perform valid sacraments? That could be a lot of priests by today.

2. How can a person who doesn't believe in sacramental grace at all have the intent to bestow that grace on another person?
.
I've been told before that intent is more of an institutional thing, so that if an individual pastor is performing a sacrament but with improper intent, the sacrament is still valid so long as the institution has proper intent, and that if the pastor has proper intent, but the organization does not, then the sacrament is invalid. The concept seems like a completely nonsensical way to approach the sacraments, as it turns them into seven magic spells based on having proper form and intent (except for marriage apparently, as even a non Roman Catholic couple can cast the marriage spell on each other with the assistance of a justice of the peace, even if they lack proper form and intent) rather than seven mysteries.

I don't know the answers to all questions about intent (and the  difficulties Rome has gotten herself into in connection with intent), but it certainly doesn't turn the sacraments into magic spells. Rather, it prevents it from being just a question of saying "the right words".

And I would agree that that idea certainly isn't what Rome's teaching on the matter is supposed to convey. I just notice that a lot of people wind up treating the sacraments as if they are magical incantations because of this mentality. I think most of us would probably agree, for example, that there is something nonsensical about a question concerning what happens if a priest consecrates the bread and wine without desiring to do so. And yet the very question belies an almost magical approach to the sacraments on the end of those who would ask such questions.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 10:44:39 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 236



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2012, 11:18:37 AM »

Quote form Wikipedia.
"This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly."

Still question the "intent" part.
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2012, 11:40:42 AM »

Quote form Wikipedia.
"This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly."

Still question the "intent" part.

To the extent that individual, rather than institutional intent, is relevent, isn't it the intent to perform the Sacrament? That is, the atheist baptizer may not intend to unite the Baptized to Christ and the atheist priest may not intend to transform the bread and wine, since they don't believe the metaphysical portion is even possible, but they do intend to perform the Christian rite (for whatever reason). This is as distinguished from an actor who doesn't 'intend' to perform the actual rite, but merely to copy the form?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2012, 05:37:24 PM »

Quote form Wikipedia.
"This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly."

Still question the "intent" part.

To the extent that individual, rather than institutional intent, is relevant, isn't it the intent to perform the Sacrament? That is, the atheist baptizer may not intend to unite the Baptized to Christ and the atheist priest may not intend to transform the bread and wine, since they don't believe the metaphysical portion is even possible, but they do intend to perform the Christian rite (for whatever reason). This is as distinguished from an actor who doesn't 'intend' to perform the actual rite, but merely to copy the form?

Nicely done.
Logged

akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2012, 11:09:42 PM »

The Roman formulation strikes me highly legalistic. It is evocative of the traditional necessity in criminal law to prove both a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mental state (mens rea) in order to make out an offence.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075



« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2012, 11:34:55 PM »

The Roman formulation strikes me highly legalistic.

This could be copy-and-pasted into a lot of situations.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2012, 03:26:08 PM »

I insisted that the priest's visible and external intent forces an internal intent - like trying to say, "I refuse to consummate this marriage" to yourself during the first intercourse with your wife. Obviously, the marriage is being consummated. Now, if you want to fail to consummate the marriage, you can refuse to do so or even substitute it with some perversion, but the act of it is done and in that, the actual intent is revealed, regardless of the pretended intent.
Interesting problem for the Corban factory, er, Marriage Tribunals.

Obviously, the marriage is being consummated? Not any more obvious than any number of marriages with hidden "impediments" revealed only after the couple divorce and want to remarry.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2012, 03:28:07 PM »

Quote form Wikipedia.
"This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly."

Still question the "intent" part.
To the extent that individual, rather than institutional intent, is relevent, isn't it the intent to perform the Sacrament? That is, the atheist baptizer may not intend to unite the Baptized to Christ and the atheist priest may not intend to transform the bread and wine, since they don't believe the metaphysical portion is even possible, but they do intend to perform the Christian rite (for whatever reason). This is as distinguished from an actor who doesn't 'intend' to perform the actual rite, but merely to copy the form?
There is only one priesthood, Christ's, and He believes. The earthly minister is only the instrument "by the hands of" and hence his intent matters no more than the hammer's hitting the nail.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 03:28:39 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2012, 03:32:32 PM »

As I understand it, a precondition in Catholic theology for a sacrament to be valid is that the one performing the sacrament must have the correct intent. In the case of baptism, it is said, even an atheist can perform it if he uses the correct matter and form and has the correct intent. My question is twofold:

1. How can the faithful know the intent of the clergy? What if a few hundred years ago some bishop didn't really intend to consecrate another bishop? Does that mean the second wasn't really a bishop? Does it mean the priests he ordained could not perform valid sacraments? That could be a lot of priests by today.

2. How can a person who doesn't believe in sacramental grace at all have the intent to bestow that grace on another person?
.
I've been told before that intent is more of an institutional thing, so that if an individual pastor is performing a sacrament but with improper intent, the sacrament is still valid so long as the institution has proper intent, and that if the pastor has proper intent, but the organization does not, then the sacrament is invalid. The concept seems like a completely nonsensical way to approach the sacraments, as it turns them into seven magic spells based on having proper form and intent (except for marriage apparently, as even a non Roman Catholic couple can cast the marriage spell on each other with the assistance of a justice of the peace, even if they lack proper form and intent) rather than seven mysteries.

I don't know the answers to all questions about intent (and the  difficulties Rome has gotten herself into in connection with intent), but it certainly doesn't turn the sacraments into magic spells. Rather, it prevents it from being just a question of saying "the right words".

And I would agree that that idea certainly isn't what Rome's teaching on the matter is supposed to convey. I just notice that a lot of people wind up treating the sacraments as if they are magical incantations because of this mentality. I think most of us would probably agree, for example, that there is something nonsensical about a question concerning what happens if a priest consecrates the bread and wine without desiring to do so. And yet the very question belies an almost magical approach to the sacraments on the end of those who would ask such questions.
Hence all these concerns about "validity" and "licency," and the difference between us and the Vatican, conventionally labeled St. Cyprian vs. St. Augustine.  If a man isn't ordained by the hand of a bishop in valid succession within the One, Holy, Catholic Church, he can intend his heart out, the bread will remain bread (at least as far as we know and it concerns us).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2012, 12:51:58 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

Hope I haven't intruded on the conversation, the questions occurred to me and I thought I would ask.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075



« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2012, 01:04:11 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2012, 01:26:35 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

Transubstantiation does not teach a "corporeal" transformation in terms of earthly human corpus.  The Catholic Church teaches that the substance of the bread and wine become the mystical body of Christ.

Good to know that the Orthodox think it's still his earthly body.  Another way that they mistake things.

M.

PS:  I am speaking with tongue in cheek here...
Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2012, 01:32:48 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

Typically at the epiclesis.

Hope I haven't intruded on the conversation, the questions occurred to me and I thought I would ask.

They are good questions.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2012, 02:13:48 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2012, 02:35:58 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

Where do you read any formal explanation of the assertion that a Black Mass is valid but illicit?

M.
Logged

loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2012, 02:39:56 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

Where do you read any formal explanation of the assertion that a Black Mass is valid but illicit?

M.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the issue:
"A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention." et al.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article10
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2012, 02:42:36 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

I think that it is not at all unreasonable that God would withhold His grace in such a situation. That is my biggest problem with the concept of validity, to be honest. It makes it so that God has no say in the matter, so to speak, because so long as certain conditions are met (apostolic succession, proper form and intent, etc.), then validity is guaranteed. Perhaps there are no efficacious sacraments outside of the Church, or perhaps there are, but I think such things are in God's hands and beyond our knowing in a formulaic sense.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2012, 02:56:50 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

Transubstantiation does not teach a "corporeal" transformation in terms of earthly human corpus.  The Catholic Church teaches that the substance of the bread and wine become the mystical body of Christ.

Good to know that the Orthodox think it's still his earthly body.  Another way that they mistake things.

M.

PS:  I am speaking with tongue in cheek here...

Does belief in transubstantiation really exclude the more physical understandings of the Eucharist, like St. Cyril's understanding, given in the eleventh of the twelve chapters? Surely both are true.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2012, 02:57:10 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

Where do you read any formal explanation of the assertion that a Black Mass is valid but illicit?

M.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the issue:
"A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention." et al.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article10

I see what you were looking at.  Well this has nothing to do with the question of intending what the Church intends.  This is a reference to personal sinfulness.

If the minister of the sacrament does not intend what the Church intends, and a minister of the demonic, by definition, does not so intend what the Church intends, then you have nothing in a black mass but pure evil.

These are not the kids of situations that the concepts of valid and licit were introduced to explain...so once again we go off the deep end and blame the Church for our own unwillingness to follow what she says and not what we think.

Have fun!!  Wink

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2012, 03:02:04 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

Transubstantiation does not teach a "corporeal" transformation in terms of earthly human corpus.  The Catholic Church teaches that the substance of the bread and wine become the mystical body of Christ.

Good to know that the Orthodox think it's still his earthly body.  Another way that they mistake things.

M.

PS:  I am speaking with tongue in cheek here...

Does belief in transubstantiation really exclude the more physical understandings of the Eucharist, like St. Cyril's understanding, given in the eleventh of the twelve chapters? Surely both are true.

C'mon outside that box, dearheart... Smiley  The mystical body is certainly material...It is simply no longer in its fallen state but in its glorified state...and we have no idea what that is...but we know it will NOT corrupt...eh?  So it is not quite right to refer to the Most Precious Body and Most Pure Blood as corporeal because that is a definitive reference to our own human bodies...in all of their corruptibility.

M.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 03:03:03 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2012, 03:06:30 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

Where do you read any formal explanation of the assertion that a Black Mass is valid but illicit?

M.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the issue:
"A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention." et al.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article10

I see what you were looking at.  Well this has nothing to do with the question of intending what the Church intends.  This is a reference to personal sinfulness.

If the minister of the sacrament does not intend what the Church intends, and a minister of the demonic, by definition, does not so intend what the Church intends, then you have nothing in a black mass but pure evil.

These are not the kids of situations that the concepts of valid and licit were introduced to explain...so once again we go off the deep end and blame the Church for our own unwillingness to follow what she says and not what we think.

Have fun!!  Wink

M.

Not sure why you're taking that tone (maybe I'm reading your post in the wrong way). All I'm try to do is explain a conclusion I've reached, imperfect as it is. I'm here for clarification, information and out of interest. Not really looking for snide remarks.

And I'm not sure that saying this isn't what they "were introduced to explain" somehow closes the case. Either there is sense in what the Saint is saying, and his statements are applicable, or not. Of course I may be misapplying what he said, but Aquinas writes that a perverse intention does NOT invalidate the sacrament. That's the example I gave.

My larger interest in asking was to get an Orthodox view of the whole thing. I imagined that, because of whatever reasons, Orthodox teaching doesn't have the processes/inclination to address such a situation in the same way. That's part of what makes it interesting to me.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2012, 03:15:47 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

Where do you read any formal explanation of the assertion that a Black Mass is valid but illicit?

M.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the issue:
"A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention." et al.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article10

I see what you were looking at.  Well this has nothing to do with the question of intending what the Church intends.  This is a reference to personal sinfulness.

If the minister of the sacrament does not intend what the Church intends, and a minister of the demonic, by definition, does not so intend what the Church intends, then you have nothing in a black mass but pure evil.

These are not the kids of situations that the concepts of valid and licit were introduced to explain...so once again we go off the deep end and blame the Church for our own unwillingness to follow what she says and not what we think.

Have fun!!  Wink

M.

Not sure why you're taking that tone (maybe I'm reading your post in the wrong way). All I'm try to do is explain a conclusion I've reached, imperfect as it is. I'm here for clarification, information and out of interest. Not really looking for snide remarks.

And I'm not sure that saying this isn't what they "were introduced to explain" somehow closes the case. Either there is sense in what the Saint is saying, and his statements are applicable, or not. Of course I may be misapplying what he said, but Aquinas writes that a perverse intention does NOT invalidate the sacrament. That's the example I gave.

My larger interest in asking was to get an Orthodox view of the whole thing. I imagined that, because of whatever reasons, Orthodox teaching doesn't have the processes/inclination to address such a situation in the same way. That's part of what makes it interesting to me.

Pardon.  You are right in reading my tone.  But you get that response from me because you are going to people who regularly misread Catholic teaching to get an opinion on your own misreading of the Saint vis a vis the teaching on "intent"...

What could you possibly hope to gain from that except extended confusion...

And that is precisely how we are in much of the mess that we are in as two separated confessions...and so I get annoyed and it shows.

So pardon my annoyance, but the substance of my annoyance remains, in this case,...shall we say...valid.
Logged

loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2012, 03:23:45 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

Where do you read any formal explanation of the assertion that a Black Mass is valid but illicit?

M.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the issue:
"A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention." et al.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article10

I see what you were looking at.  Well this has nothing to do with the question of intending what the Church intends.  This is a reference to personal sinfulness.

If the minister of the sacrament does not intend what the Church intends, and a minister of the demonic, by definition, does not so intend what the Church intends, then you have nothing in a black mass but pure evil.

These are not the kids of situations that the concepts of valid and licit were introduced to explain...so once again we go off the deep end and blame the Church for our own unwillingness to follow what she says and not what we think.

Have fun!!  Wink

M.

Not sure why you're taking that tone (maybe I'm reading your post in the wrong way). All I'm try to do is explain a conclusion I've reached, imperfect as it is. I'm here for clarification, information and out of interest. Not really looking for snide remarks.

And I'm not sure that saying this isn't what they "were introduced to explain" somehow closes the case. Either there is sense in what the Saint is saying, and his statements are applicable, or not. Of course I may be misapplying what he said, but Aquinas writes that a perverse intention does NOT invalidate the sacrament. That's the example I gave.

My larger interest in asking was to get an Orthodox view of the whole thing. I imagined that, because of whatever reasons, Orthodox teaching doesn't have the processes/inclination to address such a situation in the same way. That's part of what makes it interesting to me.

Pardon.  You are right in reading my tone.  But you get that response from me because you are going to people who regularly misread Catholic teaching to get an opinion on your own misreading of the Saint vis a vis the teaching on "intent"...

What could you possibly hope to gain from that except extended confusion...

And that is precisely how we are in much of the mess that we are in as two separated confessions...and so I get annoyed and it shows.

So pardon my annoyance, but the substance of my annoyance remains, in this case,...shall we say...valid.

I'm sorry to have annoyed you. I still don't quite understand how Aquinas' teaching on this issue favours your interpretation though (that a wicked priest's consecration is both invalid and illicit, rather than valid but illicit which is what he seems to say).
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2012, 03:33:14 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

Where do you read any formal explanation of the assertion that a Black Mass is valid but illicit?

M.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the issue:
"A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention." et al.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article10

I see what you were looking at.  Well this has nothing to do with the question of intending what the Church intends.  This is a reference to personal sinfulness.

If the minister of the sacrament does not intend what the Church intends, and a minister of the demonic, by definition, does not so intend what the Church intends, then you have nothing in a black mass but pure evil.

These are not the kids of situations that the concepts of valid and licit were introduced to explain...so once again we go off the deep end and blame the Church for our own unwillingness to follow what she says and not what we think.

Have fun!!  Wink

M.

Not sure why you're taking that tone (maybe I'm reading your post in the wrong way). All I'm try to do is explain a conclusion I've reached, imperfect as it is. I'm here for clarification, information and out of interest. Not really looking for snide remarks.

And I'm not sure that saying this isn't what they "were introduced to explain" somehow closes the case. Either there is sense in what the Saint is saying, and his statements are applicable, or not. Of course I may be misapplying what he said, but Aquinas writes that a perverse intention does NOT invalidate the sacrament. That's the example I gave.

My larger interest in asking was to get an Orthodox view of the whole thing. I imagined that, because of whatever reasons, Orthodox teaching doesn't have the processes/inclination to address such a situation in the same way. That's part of what makes it interesting to me.

Pardon.  You are right in reading my tone.  But you get that response from me because you are going to people who regularly misread Catholic teaching to get an opinion on your own misreading of the Saint vis a vis the teaching on "intent"...

What could you possibly hope to gain from that except extended confusion...

And that is precisely how we are in much of the mess that we are in as two separated confessions...and so I get annoyed and it shows.

So pardon my annoyance, but the substance of my annoyance remains, in this case,...shall we say...valid.

I'm sorry to have annoyed you. I still don't quite understand how Aquinas' teaching on this issue favours your interpretation though (that a wicked priest's consecration is both invalid and illicit, rather than valid but illicit which is what he seems to say).

You don't annoy me.  This kind of discussion does.

At any rate, I know that Aquinas is referring to personal sinfulness because I am formally trained in the Church's teaching and I know that this is how the Church teaches against Donatism.  The personal sinfulness of the priest does not bear out against any sacrament, and that is what Aquinas was talking about. 

What you are talking about with reference to validity is the intention of the minister to do as the Church intends...and that is not what Aquinas was referencing.

At any rate...I don't much care how you go with it.  You don't seem to care either so that is why I said:  Have fun!
Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2012, 03:41:35 PM »

subscribed
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2012, 03:46:04 PM »

You don't annoy me.  This kind of discussion does.

At any rate, I know that Aquinas is referring to personal sinfulness because I am formally trained in the Church's teaching and I know that this is how the Church teaches against Donatism.  The personal sinfulness of the priest does not bear out against any sacrament, and that is what Aquinas was talking about. 

What you are talking about with reference to validity is the intention of the minister to do as the Church intends...and that is not what Aquinas was referencing.

At any rate...I don't much care how you go with it.  You don't seem to care either so that is why I said:  Have fun!

So what of the example I gave of a priest who has gone into apostasy in his heart, but still serves the liturgy? What exactly applies in his case? Could it be argued thad he still intends on doing what the Church intends, even though he no longer believes in God? Or could it be argued that his sin of disbelief in this case won't be to the detriment of the laity? Perhaps a combination of both?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2012, 03:51:17 PM »

You don't annoy me.  This kind of discussion does.

At any rate, I know that Aquinas is referring to personal sinfulness because I am formally trained in the Church's teaching and I know that this is how the Church teaches against Donatism.  The personal sinfulness of the priest does not bear out against any sacrament, and that is what Aquinas was talking about. 

What you are talking about with reference to validity is the intention of the minister to do as the Church intends...and that is not what Aquinas was referencing.

At any rate...I don't much care how you go with it.  You don't seem to care either so that is why I said:  Have fun!

So what of the example I gave of a priest who has gone into apostasy in his heart, but still serves the liturgy? What exactly applies in his case? Could it be argued thad he still intends on doing what the Church intends, even though he no longer believes in God? Or could it be argued that his sin of disbelief in this case won't be to the detriment of the laity? Perhaps a combination of both?

What is the logic here? 

Is the hardest heart the only one to be reprobate or is it sufficient to simply brush off God's commands as useless when facing life in a fallen world?   Who will burn and who will be saved?  The hardened sinner or the lukewarm one?

We don't know. 

Neither do we know if a liturgy is valid or not in those cases that begin to slide off the edges of the defining yard-sticks.  God knows.

The Church says, in those fringe cases, that the Holy Spirit takes care of the faithful and no harm will be done unto them, and that is all we need to know and believe.

M.
Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2012, 04:47:54 PM »

You don't annoy me.  This kind of discussion does.

At any rate, I know that Aquinas is referring to personal sinfulness because I am formally trained in the Church's teaching and I know that this is how the Church teaches against Donatism.  The personal sinfulness of the priest does not bear out against any sacrament, and that is what Aquinas was talking about. 

What you are talking about with reference to validity is the intention of the minister to do as the Church intends...and that is not what Aquinas was referencing.

At any rate...I don't much care how you go with it.  You don't seem to care either so that is why I said:  Have fun!

So what of the example I gave of a priest who has gone into apostasy in his heart, but still serves the liturgy? What exactly applies in his case? Could it be argued thad he still intends on doing what the Church intends, even though he no longer believes in God? Or could it be argued that his sin of disbelief in this case won't be to the detriment of the laity? Perhaps a combination of both?

What is the logic here? 

Is the hardest heart the only one to be reprobate or is it sufficient to simply brush off God's commands as useless when facing life in a fallen world?   Who will burn and who will be saved?  The hardened sinner or the lukewarm one?

We don't know. 

Neither do we know if a liturgy is valid or not in those cases that begin to slide off the edges of the defining yard-sticks.  God knows.

The Church says, in those fringe cases, that the Holy Spirit takes care of the faithful and no harm will be done unto them, and that is all we need to know and believe.

M.

That is reasonable, I suppose.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2012, 05:01:09 PM »

You don't annoy me.  This kind of discussion does.

At any rate, I know that Aquinas is referring to personal sinfulness because I am formally trained in the Church's teaching and I know that this is how the Church teaches against Donatism.  The personal sinfulness of the priest does not bear out against any sacrament, and that is what Aquinas was talking about. 

What you are talking about with reference to validity is the intention of the minister to do as the Church intends...and that is not what Aquinas was referencing.

At any rate...I don't much care how you go with it.  You don't seem to care either so that is why I said:  Have fun!

So what of the example I gave of a priest who has gone into apostasy in his heart, but still serves the liturgy? What exactly applies in his case? Could it be argued thad he still intends on doing what the Church intends, even though he no longer believes in God? Or could it be argued that his sin of disbelief in this case won't be to the detriment of the laity? Perhaps a combination of both?

What is the logic here? 

Is the hardest heart the only one to be reprobate or is it sufficient to simply brush off God's commands as useless when facing life in a fallen world?   Who will burn and who will be saved?  The hardened sinner or the lukewarm one?

We don't know. 

Neither do we know if a liturgy is valid or not in those cases that begin to slide off the edges of the defining yard-sticks.  God knows.

The Church says, in those fringe cases, that the Holy Spirit takes care of the faithful and no harm will be done unto them, and that is all we need to know and believe.

M.

That is reasonable, I suppose.

...and true... Wink

...but I will admit it is not nearly as much fun as pushing the envelope.  And now you know how some of the silliness of scholasticism was born...
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 05:02:35 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2012, 05:50:46 PM »

You don't annoy me.  This kind of discussion does.

At any rate, I know that Aquinas is referring to personal sinfulness because I am formally trained in the Church's teaching and I know that this is how the Church teaches against Donatism.  The personal sinfulness of the priest does not bear out against any sacrament, and that is what Aquinas was talking about. 

What you are talking about with reference to validity is the intention of the minister to do as the Church intends...and that is not what Aquinas was referencing.

At any rate...I don't much care how you go with it.  You don't seem to care either so that is why I said:  Have fun!

So what of the example I gave of a priest who has gone into apostasy in his heart, but still serves the liturgy? What exactly applies in his case? Could it be argued thad he still intends on doing what the Church intends, even though he no longer believes in God? Or could it be argued that his sin of disbelief in this case won't be to the detriment of the laity? Perhaps a combination of both?

What is the logic here? 

Is the hardest heart the only one to be reprobate or is it sufficient to simply brush off God's commands as useless when facing life in a fallen world?   Who will burn and who will be saved?  The hardened sinner or the lukewarm one?

We don't know. 

Neither do we know if a liturgy is valid or not in those cases that begin to slide off the edges of the defining yard-sticks.  God knows.

The Church says, in those fringe cases, that the Holy Spirit takes care of the faithful and no harm will be done unto them, and that is all we need to know and believe.

M.

That is reasonable, I suppose.

...and true... Wink

...but I will admit it is not nearly as much fun as pushing the envelope.  And now you know how some of the silliness of scholasticism was born...

Sometimes, it is better just to admit that we don't know (studying some of the Fathers like St. Basil the Great has convinced me of that), yet you're definitely right that such an admission is not quite as fun to make as pushing the envelope and speculating is. Smiley
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 05:55:34 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2012, 06:29:13 PM »

You don't annoy me.  This kind of discussion does.

At any rate, I know that Aquinas is referring to personal sinfulness because I am formally trained in the Church's teaching and I know that this is how the Church teaches against Donatism.  The personal sinfulness of the priest does not bear out against any sacrament, and that is what Aquinas was talking about. 

What you are talking about with reference to validity is the intention of the minister to do as the Church intends...and that is not what Aquinas was referencing.

At any rate...I don't much care how you go with it.  You don't seem to care either so that is why I said:  Have fun!

So what of the example I gave of a priest who has gone into apostasy in his heart, but still serves the liturgy? What exactly applies in his case? Could it be argued thad he still intends on doing what the Church intends, even though he no longer believes in God? Or could it be argued that his sin of disbelief in this case won't be to the detriment of the laity? Perhaps a combination of both?

What is the logic here? 

Is the hardest heart the only one to be reprobate or is it sufficient to simply brush off God's commands as useless when facing life in a fallen world?   Who will burn and who will be saved?  The hardened sinner or the lukewarm one?

We don't know. 

Neither do we know if a liturgy is valid or not in those cases that begin to slide off the edges of the defining yard-sticks.  God knows.

The Church says, in those fringe cases, that the Holy Spirit takes care of the faithful and no harm will be done unto them, and that is all we need to know and believe.

M.

That is reasonable, I suppose.

...and true... Wink

...but I will admit it is not nearly as much fun as pushing the envelope.  And now you know how some of the silliness of scholasticism was born...

Sometimes, it is better just to admit that we don't know (studying some of the Fathers like St. Basil the Great has convinced me of that), yet you're definitely right that such an admission is not quite as fun to make as pushing the envelope and speculating is. Smiley

Isn't (sometimes outlandish) speculation, within a rigorous intellectual framework, part of the fun of scholasticism?

Now, how many angels can do the quickstep on the head of a pin....?
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2012, 06:35:31 PM »

Intent is not the intent of the person but rather the intent of the Church.  So when a priest who does not believe in the Real Presence says Mass following all the rubrics and words and uses the proper matter of unleavened bread with no additives, and grape wine with no additives, then the consecration is valid because "he does what the Church intends in consecrating the bread and wine."  This is why even heretical and schismatic clergy can still perform the Sacraments validly but illicitly (outside of the law of the Church).  This is why there is the problem of rogue priests being able to confect the Eucharist validly even though they have been severed from the Catholic Church.

I don't agree with it, but it is what the Church teaches.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2012, 06:49:05 PM »

Intent is not the intent of the person but rather the intent of the Church.  So when a priest who does not believe in the Real Presence says Mass following all the rubrics and words and uses the proper matter of unleavened bread with no additives, and grape wine with no additives, then the consecration is valid because "he does what the Church intends in consecrating the bread and wine."  This is why even heretical and schismatic clergy can still perform the Sacraments validly but illicitly (outside of the law of the Church).  This is why there is the problem of rogue priests being able to confect the Eucharist validly even though they have been severed from the Catholic Church.

I don't agree with it, but it is what the Church teaches.

There are limits to that...At some point a heretic is removed from the Church and no longer is able to do as the Church intends because the Church recognizes that they cannot.  The same would apply to one who intends something demonic in what they do...however much the form is intact.

There is never a one-size-fits-all in Church law...It is always open first and foremost to the actions of the Holy Spirit, and then to those who teach and impose the laws of the Church.

M.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2012, 06:53:51 PM »

There are limits to that...At some point a heretic is removed from the Church and no longer is able to do as the Church intends because the Church recognizes that they cannot.  The same would apply to one who intends something demonic in what they do...however much the form is intact.

There is never a one-size-fits-all in Church law...It is always open first and foremost to the actions of the Holy Spirit, and then to those who teach and impose the laws of the Church.

M.

I haven't seen any limit to that.  Ordinations, for one thing, it seems any rogue bishop can ordain anyone they want.  The only true limit of such ordination is if the rogue bishop ordains a woman, then of course that cannot be.

This is why we have the infamous "Dutch Touch", when some Old Catholic bishop ordained Anglican bishops so that they can regain their validy.  This is how the SSPX keeps ordaining priests despite the fact that the Vatican herself told them not to.  Lefebvre shoudn't even have been able to validly ordain because Canon Law explicitly states that what he did is not the intent of the Church (you cannot ordain bishops without the permission of the Pope), yet the validity of his ordinations were never questioned to this day and the bishops are recognized as bishops.
Logged
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #39 on: August 20, 2012, 06:57:17 PM »

There are limits to that...At some point a heretic is removed from the Church and no longer is able to do as the Church intends because the Church recognizes that they cannot.  The same would apply to one who intends something demonic in what they do...however much the form is intact.

There is never a one-size-fits-all in Church law...It is always open first and foremost to the actions of the Holy Spirit, and then to those who teach and impose the laws of the Church.

M.

Are you sure this is legitimate Catholic teaching, rather than a synthesis of teachings? Could you provide a reference for this perspective? Thank you.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 07:03:14 PM by loggats » Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 20, 2012, 07:09:08 PM »

There are limits to that...At some point a heretic is removed from the Church and no longer is able to do as the Church intends because the Church recognizes that they cannot.  The same would apply to one who intends something demonic in what they do...however much the form is intact.

There is never a one-size-fits-all in Church law...It is always open first and foremost to the actions of the Holy Spirit, and then to those who teach and impose the laws of the Church.

M.

I haven't seen any limit to that.  Ordinations, for one thing, it seems any rogue bishop can ordain anyone they want.  The only true limit of such ordination is if the rogue bishop ordains a woman, then of course that cannot be.

This is why we have the infamous "Dutch Touch", when some Old Catholic bishop ordained Anglican bishops so that they can regain their validy.  This is how the SSPX keeps ordaining priests despite the fact that the Vatican herself told them not to.  Lefebvre shoudn't even have been able to validly ordain because Canon Law explicitly states that what he did is not the intent of the Church (you cannot ordain bishops without the permission of the Pope), yet the validity of his ordinations were never questioned to this day and the bishops are recognized as bishops.

The Church reserves the right to make the call between true heretics and material schismatics...I trust they can tell the difference.  I don't think you can...actually...and I say that without intending to be mean.  I think you have a bone to pick and so you will, as most find that they must, go to any extreme necessary and define terms as you see them.

Mary
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2012, 07:11:50 PM »

The Church reserves the right to make the call between true heretics and material schismatics...I trust they can tell the difference.  I don't think you can...actually...and I say that without intending to be mean.  I think you have a bone to pick and so you will, as most find that they must, go to any extreme necessary and define terms as you see them.

Mary

Fair enough.  Can you give me an example when the Church declares a Sacrament invalid because the person is in heresy or schism?  I am not talking about the Anglican ordinations because that one was because of a change in form, thus it is not the intent that invalidated their ordinations but the error in form.  I want a concrete example where the act of schism or heresy invalidated the Sacrament.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 20, 2012, 07:52:08 PM »

The Church reserves the right to make the call between true heretics and material schismatics...I trust they can tell the difference.  I don't think you can...actually...and I say that without intending to be mean.  I think you have a bone to pick and so you will, as most find that they must, go to any extreme necessary and define terms as you see them.

Mary

Fair enough.  Can you give me an example when the Church declares a Sacrament invalid because the person is in heresy or schism?  I am not talking about the Anglican ordinations because that one was because of a change in form, thus it is not the intent that invalidated their ordinations but the error in form.  I want a concrete example where the act of schism or heresy invalidated the Sacrament.

I'm stuck...I can't give you an example.  And I do not know enough about the Anglican situation to comment without looking again and asking, though I don't mean to insult by saying so.  I do believe that the Church gives schismatics and heretics room to change their minds before the entire extra-ecclesial enterprise is removed from succession....So I don't know that it happens in one great declarative...as you ask to see here.

M.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #43 on: August 20, 2012, 08:50:10 PM »

I'm stuck...I can't give you an example.  And I do not know enough about the Anglican situation to comment without looking again and asking, though I don't mean to insult by saying so.  I do believe that the Church gives schismatics and heretics room to change their minds before the entire extra-ecclesial enterprise is removed from succession....So I don't know that it happens in one great declarative...as you ask to see here.

M.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.  This is not just "a bone to pick" but rather from what I personally have learned from the history of the Church.  I don't claim I know everything, I only know a couple of examples, that is why I ask for you to come up with an example.  If there is evidence contrary to what my current opinion is on the matter, then I will accept my fault and learn from it.  But the problem is I haven't seen any case where a priest or bishop is told that they cannot perform the Sacraments validly after they left the Church for whatever reason based on the intent.

I think the only 2 Sacraments a priest or bishop outside of the Catholic Church cannot perform validly is confession and marraige.  Marriages have to be "witnessed" by someone designated by the Church to witness on her behalf.  So a layperson (extraordinary circumstance) can witness validly but a priest who has left the Church cannot because he does not have the blessing of the Church to witness.  Same for confession as faculties are required for a priest to validly absolve.  So a priest who leaves the Church does not take the faculties with him, but the Church can, by law, supply the faculties in emergency situations (a defrocked priest can hear confessions if the penitent is in danger of death).

But the other 5 has no such restrictions as long as the proper matter, form and intent is used.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 20, 2012, 10:12:21 PM »

I'm stuck...I can't give you an example.  And I do not know enough about the Anglican situation to comment without looking again and asking, though I don't mean to insult by saying so.  I do believe that the Church gives schismatics and heretics room to change their minds before the entire extra-ecclesial enterprise is removed from succession....So I don't know that it happens in one great declarative...as you ask to see here.

M.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.  This is not just "a bone to pick" but rather from what I personally have learned from the history of the Church.  I don't claim I know everything, I only know a couple of examples, that is why I ask for you to come up with an example.  If there is evidence contrary to what my current opinion is on the matter, then I will accept my fault and learn from it.  But the problem is I haven't seen any case where a priest or bishop is told that they cannot perform the Sacraments validly after they left the Church for whatever reason based on the intent.

I think the only 2 Sacraments a priest or bishop outside of the Catholic Church cannot perform validly is confession and marraige.  Marriages have to be "witnessed" by someone designated by the Church to witness on her behalf.  So a layperson (extraordinary circumstance) can witness validly but a priest who has left the Church cannot because he does not have the blessing of the Church to witness.  Same for confession as faculties are required for a priest to validly absolve.  So a priest who leaves the Church does not take the faculties with him, but the Church can, by law, supply the faculties in emergency situations (a defrocked priest can hear confessions if the penitent is in danger of death).

But the other 5 has no such restrictions as long as the proper matter, form and intent is used.

Yes.  I am understanding better and better with each iteration, and I am now regretting my bone-picking comment...pardon.

I don't know that I can get you an example but I will speak with my spiritual father, an eastern Catholic priest, in a few moments and will be reading this part of the thread to him and perhaps by tomorrow have something more to contribute...

Mary
Logged

augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,636



« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2012, 02:21:27 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.
I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 02:22:56 PM by augustin717 » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2012, 02:27:34 PM »

I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

Yes, but he was a Peter Mogilan Gorilla.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,006



« Reply #47 on: August 21, 2012, 02:55:08 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,006



« Reply #48 on: August 21, 2012, 03:01:38 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.
I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

Dositheos II Notarius of Jerusalem was certainly correct in rejecting the heresy of Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople as set forth in his Confession of Faith (1629), that is, his agreement in the doctrines of predestination and justification by faith alone. However, I am not familiar with anything he may have written that would be contrary to what OrthoNoob wrote.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2012, 04:37:31 PM »

I'm stuck...I can't give you an example.  And I do not know enough about the Anglican situation to comment without looking again and asking, though I don't mean to insult by saying so.  I do believe that the Church gives schismatics and heretics room to change their minds before the entire extra-ecclesial enterprise is removed from succession....So I don't know that it happens in one great declarative...as you ask to see here.

M.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.  This is not just "a bone to pick" but rather from what I personally have learned from the history of the Church.  I don't claim I know everything, I only know a couple of examples, that is why I ask for you to come up with an example.  If there is evidence contrary to what my current opinion is on the matter, then I will accept my fault and learn from it.  But the problem is I haven't seen any case where a priest or bishop is told that they cannot perform the Sacraments validly after they left the Church for whatever reason based on the intent.

I think the only 2 Sacraments a priest or bishop outside of the Catholic Church cannot perform validly is confession and marriage.  Marriages have to be "witnessed" by someone designated by the Church to witness on her behalf.  So a layperson (extraordinary circumstance) can witness validly but a priest who has left the Church cannot because he does not have the blessing of the Church to witness.  Same for confession as faculties are required for a priest to validly absolve.  So a priest who leaves the Church does not take the faculties with him, but the Church can, by law, supply the faculties in emergency situations (a defrocked priest can hear confessions if the penitent is in danger of death).

But the other 5 has no such restrictions as long as the proper matter, form and intent is used.

One thing that I must go back and correct about this is that you have said that a bishop who has left the Church cannot validly consecrate without the approval of the pope.   The pope has the right to reject the ordained bishops but the ordinations themselves are indeed valid.

Logged

OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075



« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2012, 05:05:10 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.
I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2012, 05:27:35 PM »

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.

Hast thou not heard of the Western Captivity and the Mogila gorilla for sale?

Decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheos, Statement of the Council of Jerusalem 1672

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes* for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different from it; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics. But necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress, the Catholic Church of Christ rejects and anathematises.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 05:34:20 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2012, 06:01:46 PM »

One thing that I must go back and correct about this is that you have said that a bishop who has left the Church cannot validly consecrate without the approval of the pope.   The pope has the right to reject the ordained bishops but the ordinations themselves are indeed valid.

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2012, 06:21:15 PM »

One thing that I must go back and correct about this is that you have said that a bishop who has left the Church cannot validly consecrate without the approval of the pope.   The pope has the right to reject the ordained bishops but the ordinations themselves are indeed valid.

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never questioned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

Intent is always specific to the act.  Any validly ordained bishop can ordain men to the presbyterate and to the episcopate.  It is a sacramental power inherent to his own ordination. 

He may need permission to ordain licitly so as to be a part of and in good standing with the Catholic episcopacy and in communion with the papal Church,  but he needs no one's permission to ordain validly.



Logged

augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,636



« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2012, 06:45:20 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.
I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.
Not one but many. Nick showed you one.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #55 on: August 21, 2012, 07:33:52 PM »

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 21, 2012, 08:10:41 PM »

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

I will gamble and presume that you are speaking of the Chinese bishops who are not recognized by the Vatican...

In all of those instances they are formally referred to as illicit ordinations.  No one yet, with the authority to do so, has indicated that they are invalid.

M.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 08:11:05 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075



« Reply #57 on: August 21, 2012, 08:17:47 PM »

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.
I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.
Not one but many. Nick showed you one.

I see that, and I stand corrected.

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #58 on: August 21, 2012, 08:23:34 PM »

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

I will gamble and presume that you are speaking of the Chinese bishops who are not recognized by the Vatican...

In all of those instances they are formally referred to as illicit ordinations.  No one yet, with the authority to do so, has indicated that they are invalid.

M.

There wasn't anything in my post about Chinese bishops.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #59 on: August 21, 2012, 08:48:12 PM »

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

Isn't it the same thing?  If the Pope speaks for the Church, therefore the intent of the Church is the intent of the Pope (and vice versa).  So how can one "do as the Church intends when performing the Sacrament," when the performance of the Sacrament is against the intent of the one who speaks in behalf of the Church?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #60 on: August 21, 2012, 08:52:40 PM »

I will gamble and presume that you are speaking of the Chinese bishops who are not recognized by the Vatican...

In all of those instances they are formally referred to as illicit ordinations.  No one yet, with the authority to do so, has indicated that they are invalid.

M.

There wasn't anything in my post about Chinese bishops.

It could be anyone, Chinese bishops, SSPX, Old Catholic bishops giving away ordinations.  That in fact is the saddest part of this debacle, the Catholic Church has confirmed a few decades ago that the Old Catholics have valid ordination.  And today they're giving away ordinations like freebies in a convention.  They've tried to ordained the Roman Catholic womenpriests, I've seen a list male "bishops" who claim Apostolic Succession through the Old Catholics.  I've come across the Facebook profile of one from the Charismatic Catholic Church who is just another rogue group who claims Apostolic Succession through the Old Catholics.

I personally think this is sad.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #61 on: August 21, 2012, 09:03:15 PM »

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

Isn't it the same thing? 

No. The ordinations happened, and the SSPX bishops suffered the consequence of being excommunicated. To me it seems pretty straightforward.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 21, 2012, 09:56:46 PM »

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

Isn't it the same thing?  If the Pope speaks for the Church, therefore the intent of the Church is the intent of the Pope (and vice versa).  So how can one "do as the Church intends when performing the Sacrament," when the performance of the Sacrament is against the intent of the one who speaks in behalf of the Church?

Intent is not a generic term.  Each intent is specific to the sacrament.  If a bishop intends what the Church intends as an episcopal consecration or a presbyteral consecration then you have a valid consecration.

What you are talking about and that other fellow is referring to is an illicit consecration....

You cannot simply say "Oh...they are outside, so they are invalid because they reject the Church or the pope."  No.  They are illicit but there's nothing that indicates that they do not intend to consecrate bishops and priests, and in the same way as the Church that they have left behind or rejected for some reason.  That reason has nothing to do with the fact that they understand consecration the same way as the Church that they left behind.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2012, 12:56:17 AM »

No. The ordinations happened, and the SSPX bishops suffered the consequence of being excommunicated. To me it seems pretty straightforward.

Well, unfortunately it is.  I know what the Church teaches, but I don't get why one who willfully defied the Pope still is able to ordain bishops.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2012, 12:57:29 AM »

Intent is not a generic term.  Each intent is specific to the sacrament.  If a bishop intends what the Church intends as an episcopal consecration or a presbyteral consecration then you have a valid consecration.

What you are talking about and that other fellow is referring to is an illicit consecration....

You cannot simply say "Oh...they are outside, so they are invalid because they reject the Church or the pope."  No.  They are illicit but there's nothing that indicates that they do not intend to consecrate bishops and priests, and in the same way as the Church that they have left behind or rejected for some reason.  That reason has nothing to do with the fact that they understand consecration the same way as the Church that they left behind.


But that is my question, if the intent of the Church through the Pope is that those priests are not to be ordained Bishops without his permission, then where did the intent that validated the episcopal consecration come from?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2012, 03:06:14 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 03:06:37 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #66 on: August 22, 2012, 05:06:26 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

Which council are we talking about?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075



« Reply #67 on: August 22, 2012, 07:17:36 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #68 on: August 22, 2012, 09:13:30 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

Which council are we talking about?

Council of Jerusalem 1672



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 09:16:54 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #69 on: August 22, 2012, 09:35:10 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

Which council are we talking about?

Council of Jerusalem 1672

Thanks. I didn't feel like going back and re-reading the earlier part of the discussion.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 09:36:01 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 236



WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 22, 2012, 09:42:20 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 09:44:58 AM by soderquj » Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #71 on: August 22, 2012, 09:48:46 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 236



WWW
« Reply #72 on: August 22, 2012, 09:53:51 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #73 on: August 22, 2012, 10:07:43 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.

Oh sorry. I'm not a native speaker of English. Never even set foot in an anglophone country. Clarified is indeed the verb I should have used.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 10:08:01 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 236



WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 22, 2012, 10:47:58 AM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.

Oh sorry. I'm not a native speaker of English. Never even set foot in an anglophone country. Clarified is indeed the verb I should have used.

No problem, we do believe we can reference other councils that clarify our understanding of the teaching passed to us from Christ through his Apostles. Just not new teachings.
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #75 on: August 22, 2012, 12:03:53 PM »


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

I was never a Protestant or RC so this line of thinking is difficult for me to understand.

My answer would be, Jerusalem 1672 is considered by many Orthodox to be 'okay', but uses some terminology and phrasing economically for the time that is very Latin, and need not be perpetuated. It's not evil or scary or anything.

Constantinople V, by contrast, is definitely considered correct by all.

An "Ecumenical" council is just a council calling the bishop households of the whole Roman Empire (ecumene).  
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 12:06:36 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 22, 2012, 12:24:42 PM »



However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?
I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.

Oh sorry. I'm not a native speaker of English. Never even set foot in an anglophone country. Clarified is indeed the verb I should have used.

All things considered then, I wish I had your facility with foreign languages!!  I can manage but I struggle and it never seems or is as natural as you sound here!

Pardon the off topic comment but you are to be congratulated.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 22, 2012, 12:34:32 PM »


I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

I was never a Protestant or RC so this line of thinking is difficult for me to understand.

My answer would be, Jerusalem 1672 is considered by many Orthodox to be 'okay', but uses some terminology and phrasing economically for the time that is very Latin, and need not be perpetuated. It's not evil or scary or anything.

Constantinople V, by contrast, is definitely considered correct by all.

An "Ecumenical" council is just a council calling the bishop households of the whole Roman Empire (ecumene).  

Just a thought...I often see Orthodox people use common Latin expressions quite naturally and correctly...Sometimes they are simply the most efficient or most recognizable ways of saying things.  I also hear Greek phrases or words used among those whose traditions are in the Latin west because they refer to things that are best expressed with the Greek phrase or word, for any number of reasons. 

I don't get the difficulty with that in either direction.

M.
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #78 on: August 22, 2012, 01:01:56 PM »



All things considered then, I wish I had your facility with foreign languages!!  I can manage but I struggle and it never seems or is as natural as you sound here!

Pardon the off topic comment but you are to be congratulated.

M.

Thank you, how kind.

However, talent for linguistics comes at a great price. I can't wrap my head around maths or natural sciences for example. So be careful what you wish for  Grin

Also, there is no great need to learn any foreign language if you speak English natively.


« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 01:04:43 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 22, 2012, 01:25:29 PM »



All things considered then, I wish I had your facility with foreign languages!!  I can manage but I struggle and it never seems or is as natural as you sound here!

Pardon the off topic comment but you are to be congratulated.

M.

Thank you, how kind.

However, talent for linguistics comes at a great price. I can't wrap my head around maths or natural sciences for example. So be careful what you wish for  Grin

Also, there is no great need to learn any foreign language if you speak English natively.


It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

Just to give some of my friends the honor of speaking to them in just one of their natal languages... Smiley...would be a good thing and make me feel grand. 

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Well...had I known then what I know now...eh?...I might not have mis-spent my youth.

Blessings,

M.
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #80 on: August 22, 2012, 01:52:12 PM »

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca Smiley

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

Cheesy
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 01:54:00 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 22, 2012, 02:04:29 PM »

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca Smiley

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

Cheesy


Is language envy a sin?... Cool
Logged

Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 7,045



« Reply #82 on: August 22, 2012, 04:27:15 PM »

Also, there is no great need to learn any foreign language if you speak English natively.

You obviously haven't ment any Czech or Russian. It could be due to the Soviet past or something but they speak hardly any English according to my experience.
Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #83 on: August 22, 2012, 05:10:31 PM »

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca Smiley

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

Cheesy


You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 05:13:26 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #84 on: August 23, 2012, 02:13:38 AM »


Just a thought...I often see Orthodox people use common Latin expressions quite naturally and correctly...Sometimes they are simply the most efficient or most recognizable ways of saying things.  I also hear Greek phrases or words used among those whose traditions are in the Latin west because they refer to things that are best expressed with the Greek phrase or word, for any number of reasons.  

I don't get the difficulty with that in either direction.

M.

EM, I don't have a problem using Latin terminology. I do have a problem with bad Greek metaphysics imported into the Latin tradition and taken far too seriously.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 02:14:10 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #85 on: August 23, 2012, 02:35:49 AM »

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca Smiley

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

Cheesy


You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?

It is me.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 02:40:26 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #86 on: August 23, 2012, 03:56:48 AM »

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca Smiley

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

Cheesy


You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?

It is me.


Good to see you here. Smiley
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 03:58:07 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #87 on: August 23, 2012, 04:13:09 AM »

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca Smiley

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

Cheesy


You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?

It is me.


Good to see you here. Smiley

Thank you, it's good to see you again too. You were my favorite poster back there, and I believe I never made much of a secret about that Cheesy
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 04:15:05 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #88 on: August 23, 2012, 08:58:11 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,644


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #89 on: August 23, 2012, 09:08:45 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #90 on: August 23, 2012, 09:40:29 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #91 on: August 23, 2012, 09:53:22 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #92 on: August 23, 2012, 10:06:06 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #93 on: August 23, 2012, 10:12:53 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.

Thanks, I had no idea about that. However, surely the minister is never truly alone (without the Church as a communicating community) - what about the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 10:15:01 AM by loggats » Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #94 on: August 23, 2012, 11:14:14 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.

Thanks, I had no idea about that. However, surely the minister is never truly alone (without the Church as a communicating community) - what about the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering?

Technically true. But not really an idea prevalent before, say, Dionysius the Areopagite. The Orthodox thought, both in piety and canon law, regarding the Eucharist is from an earlier era: priests celebrate only one Eucharist per day and only with others. The Divine Liturgy is inherently communal, i.e. done by and for the worshiping community, not for the edification of the priest or because of something more analogically cosmic.

Also, there simply is no rite other than those which assume "two or three gathered in my name."
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #95 on: August 23, 2012, 12:22:25 PM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.

Thanks, I had no idea about that. However, surely the minister is never truly alone (without the Church as a communicating community) - what about the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering?

Technically true. But not really an idea prevalent before, say, Dionysius the Areopagite.

Well, that would take it back  to the first century, wouldn't it  Grin

I think you meant Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 12:22:41 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #96 on: August 23, 2012, 10:44:22 PM »

Welcome to the forum, "Cyrillic". Wink

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

And, oddly enough, it isn't allowed with the OF/NO.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #97 on: August 24, 2012, 03:44:19 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.

Thanks, I had no idea about that. However, surely the minister is never truly alone (without the Church as a communicating community) - what about the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering?

Technically true. But not really an idea prevalent before, say, Dionysius the Areopagite. The Orthodox thought, both in piety and canon law, regarding the Eucharist is from an earlier era: priests celebrate only one Eucharist per day and only with others. The Divine Liturgy is inherently communal, i.e. done by and for the worshiping community, not for the edification of the priest or because of something more analogically cosmic.

Also, there simply is no rite other than those which assume "two or three gathered in my name."

Hmmm maybe this is where the Roman liturgy takes it to another level.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,054


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #98 on: August 24, 2012, 03:58:46 AM »

Welcome to the forum, "Cyrillic". Wink

Thanks Peter J. I take it that you recognised me?  Wink
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #99 on: August 24, 2012, 04:01:02 AM »

Welcome to the forum, "Cyrillic". Wink

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

And, oddly enough, it isn't allowed with the OF/NO.

That doesn't seem odd - quite a typically NO thing to do.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #100 on: August 24, 2012, 09:50:51 AM »

Welcome to the forum, "Cyrillic". Wink

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

And, oddly enough, it isn't allowed with the OF/NO.

That doesn't seem odd - quite a typically NO thing to do.

Well ... in some ways the NO does return to a more traditional way of doing things, but in many other ways it moves to something completely untraditional (e.g. allowing versus populum).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #101 on: August 24, 2012, 10:48:58 AM »

Hmmm maybe this is where the Roman liturgy takes it to another level.

Hard to see it that way. Sacraments are always communal on all levels of the Church. That way there is "symmetry" between the various liturgies, a la Dionysius and Maximos: multiple parts of the human person, multiple persons in the flesh, multiple celestial beings, all at once, thereby reflecting a catholic Kingdom. Every other sacrament requires multiple people, as did the Last Supper itself. Why is the mass different?
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,768


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #102 on: August 24, 2012, 01:18:15 PM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.

Thanks, I had no idea about that. However, surely the minister is never truly alone (without the Church as a communicating community) - what about the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering?

I wasn't aware that Orthodoxy had a "Church Suffering"?
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #103 on: August 24, 2012, 07:37:54 PM »

Hmmm maybe this is where the Roman liturgy takes it to another level.

Hard to see it that way. Sacraments are always communal on all levels of the Church. That way there is "symmetry" between the various liturgies, a la Dionysius and Maximos: multiple parts of the human person, multiple persons in the flesh, multiple celestial beings, all at once, thereby reflecting a catholic Kingdom. Every other sacrament requires multiple people, as did the Last Supper itself. Why is the mass different?

The mass is unique by re-presenting heaven on earth, and renewing man's ontological destiny forever. It's certainly the centremost sacrament. It represents a "cosmic kingdom", not simply uniting multiple entities but consolidating the whole of reality. Maybe that's what makes it different.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #104 on: August 24, 2012, 07:40:38 PM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.

Thanks, I had no idea about that. However, surely the minister is never truly alone (without the Church as a communicating community) - what about the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering?

I wasn't aware that Orthodoxy had a "Church Suffering"?

Really? I had no idea that the Orthodox didn't accept the reality of the Church Suffering.
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #105 on: August 24, 2012, 07:41:26 PM »

The mass is unique by re-presenting heaven on earth, and renewing man's ontological destiny forever. It's certainly the centremost sacrament. It represents a "cosmic kingdom", not simply uniting multiple entities but consolidating the whole of reality. Maybe that's what makes it different.

This doesn't differ to what the Divine Liturgy is, but still you cannot have the Divine Liturgy without a congregation.
Logged
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #106 on: August 24, 2012, 08:01:42 PM »

The mass is unique by re-presenting heaven on earth, and renewing man's ontological destiny forever. It's certainly the centremost sacrament. It represents a "cosmic kingdom", not simply uniting multiple entities but consolidating the whole of reality. Maybe that's what makes it different.

This doesn't differ to what the Divine Liturgy is, but still you cannot have the Divine Liturgy without a congregation.

The Catholic church acknowledges that the Church Triumphant and Suffering can legitimately function as "congregants".
Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,768


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #107 on: August 24, 2012, 08:05:37 PM »

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.

Not only foreign, but impossible and uncanonical.

It's obviously not impossible because the Church sanctions this kind of mass, in some situations.

Not the Orthodox Church. Even in the Gulag, priests would have nearby cellmates tap responses on the wall.

Thanks, I had no idea about that. However, surely the minister is never truly alone (without the Church as a communicating community) - what about the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering?

I wasn't aware that Orthodoxy had a "Church Suffering"?

Really? I had no idea that the Orthodox didn't accept the reality of the Church Suffering.

I'm not Orthodox, and I'm not entirely clear on what they believe happens after death (Vis-à-vis particular judgement, etc.), but I'm pretty sure they don't believe in Purgatory.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #108 on: August 24, 2012, 08:07:10 PM »

The Catholic church acknowledges that the Church Triumphant and Suffering can legitimately function as "congregants".

I think the problem is the views are different.  The Catholic Church (at least the Latin Rite) sees that the Mass takes place on earth and those in heaven participate with the actions of the priest.  In Orthodoxy, the Divine Liturgy is meant to transport those on earth into the heavenly Liturgy in the Kingdom of God.  Therefore there must be participants here for us to join them, and not just the priest for them to join us.

Also in Catholic theology, the Eucharist is merely the work of the priest.  In Orthodoxy, the Eucharist is the work of all.  The priest merely offers the sacrifice as the sacrifice is from the people (the bread and wine).  In the days of the temple, the priest doesn't just slaughter animals just because it is what he does.  People need to bring the animals to the priest for him to offer to God.
Logged
loggats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic, with an interest in Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Malta
Posts: 18



« Reply #109 on: August 24, 2012, 08:24:56 PM »

The Catholic church acknowledges that the Church Triumphant and Suffering can legitimately function as "congregants".

I think the problem is the views are different.  The Catholic Church (at least the Latin Rite) sees that the Mass takes place on earth and those in heaven participate with the actions of the priest.  In Orthodoxy, the Divine Liturgy is meant to transport those on earth into the heavenly Liturgy in the Kingdom of God.  Therefore there must be participants here for us to join them, and not just the priest for them to join us.

Also in Catholic theology, the Eucharist is merely the work of the priest.  In Orthodoxy, the Eucharist is the work of all.  The priest merely offers the sacrifice as the sacrifice is from the people (the bread and wine).  In the days of the temple, the priest doesn't just slaughter animals just because it is what he does.  People need to bring the animals to the priest for him to offer to God.

Re use of "merely" - this doesn't seem particulary respectful to the office of the priesthood. Maybe respecting priests isn't a big part of your particular tradition, but in Catholicism they hold a privileged place, first and foremost because they transmit the sacraments. Also, the unbloody sacrifice of the Son of God isn't really comparable to the pagan sacrifice of animals (except in so far as these prefigured the mass) because it is not a simple appeasement, intended to sate the hunger of a bloodthirsty deity.

The priest holds a special place bridging two worlds. Certainly he does so on behalf of the congregation, but also on behalf of all humanity (who cannot all be present, naturally). People will always "bring the animals" to the priest (to use your metaphor) because people will always be in need of Christ's saving action, in all points of time and space.



« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 08:26:10 PM by loggats » Logged

Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.443 seconds with 137 queries.