OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 03:01:19 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Eucharist : Roman Catholic view Vs. Eastern Orthodox view  (Read 3293 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« on: September 17, 2012, 06:24:20 AM »

Like the Roman Catholic Church's transubstantiation, the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus at consecration.

In the EOC, is it believed to be the actual body and blood, or it is spiritually the body and blood or just symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus? Which view is correct?

The RCC calls this "Transubstantiation". What does the EOC call this?

And, are the consecration results exactly the same in both the RCC and the EOC? If not, what is the difference?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 06:28:12 AM by kx9 » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2012, 07:34:03 AM »

Quote
In the EOC, is it believed to be the actual body and blood, or it is spiritually the body and blood or just symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus? Which view is correct?
We believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord. We dont try to go deeper than that. The way my priest told me was, "We dont have to put it in a box, label it, and understand it. It just is."

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2012, 08:27:31 AM »

^this

It is both, a mystery, "It just is".

The other thing for Eastern Orthodox is that the Eucharist is for eating not to be worshiped.  I believe Roman Catholics have adoration chapels where they worship the gifts.
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012, 09:25:26 AM »

^this

It is both, a mystery, "It just is".

The other thing for Eastern Orthodox is that the Eucharist is for eating not to be worshiped.  I believe Roman Catholics have adoration chapels where they worship the gifts.

Does the EO consider this to be idolatry?  I know in Scripture St. Stephen accused the Jews of idolatry for trying to contain God and His Messiah in the temple and within the bounds of the Law.  God cannot be contained by the temple and the law.  By the same measure, while the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, can we say it is wrong to direct worship towards it?  Or is it okay?
Logged
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2012, 09:44:33 AM »

^this

It is both, a mystery, "It just is".

The other thing for Eastern Orthodox is that the Eucharist is for eating not to be worshiped.  I believe Roman Catholics have adoration chapels where they worship the gifts.

Does the EO consider this to be idolatry?  I know in Scripture St. Stephen accused the Jews of idolatry for trying to contain God and His Messiah in the temple and within the bounds of the Law.  God cannot be contained by the temple and the law.  By the same measure, while the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, can we say it is wrong to direct worship towards it?  Or is it okay?

I do not know if we would call it Idolatry, I do not know if is it treated as an Idol?  

During Presanctified the priest enter the Nave with his head covered as the Presanctified Holy Gifts are a better representation of Christ. While the Priest and Deacon carry the Presanctified Holy Gifts, they say quietly “Through the prayer of our holy Fathers…”, the people kneel and bow with their faces to the ground. This acknowledges that the gifts are already the body and blood from the DL the Sunday before. But again we are told it is for eating not worship. EO do not pray to the Eucharist.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 09:46:23 AM by soderquj » Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2012, 09:45:51 AM »

Quote
Does the EO consider this to be idolatry?
I dont think so. I just personally find it misguided, but a natural evolution of things based on how Roman Catholics innovate and try to make things more than what they are.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2012, 09:56:24 AM »

From my understanding over the years, the differences in our understanding of the meaning and nature of the Eucharist are subtle and are not among the church-dividing issues which divide us on this earthly journey.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2012, 11:04:30 AM »

In the EOC, is it believed to be the actual body and blood, or it is spiritually the body and blood or... symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus?

All three.
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.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2012, 12:46:25 PM »

In the EOC, is it believed to be the actual body and blood, or it is spiritually the body and blood or... symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus?

All three.

I've learned differently so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've learned the Eucharist IS 100% the body and blood of Christ.  The bread IS his flesh, the wine & water IS his blood.   When you partake in the Eucharist you are consuming the actual BODY and BLOOD of Christ (yes the actual flesh).   I have not heard of it being anything symbolic Huh
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
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: 1,621



« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2012, 01:09:00 PM »

In the EOC, is it believed to be the actual body and blood, or it is spiritually the body and blood or... symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus?

All three.

I've learned differently so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've learned the Eucharist IS 100% the body and blood of Christ.  The bread IS his flesh, the wine & water IS his blood.   When you partake in the Eucharist you are consuming the actual BODY and BLOOD of Christ (yes the actual flesh).   I have not heard of it being anything symbolic Huh


None of those things are mutually exclusive.
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: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2012, 01:47:43 PM »

The Eucharist is shown to be the true body and blood of Christ.

It is the glorified Spirit-animated Flesh and Blood of the risen Christ [1 Corinthians 15].

It is the Symbol which re-presents (the) History (of salvation), recapitulated in the life of Christ; the Life is in the Blood.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 01:49:29 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.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2012, 10:11:43 PM »

When the priest processes with the Holy Gifts during the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified, we prostrate ourselves before the Eucharistic Christ and adore him.  As St Nicholas Cabasilas notes, this act is qualitatively different from the veneration offered to the oblations at the Great Entrance or to the icon of our Lord: it is true adoration.  We typically do not offer services of adoration outside the Liturgy, but within the Liturgy we do not hesitate to adore and pray to the Body and Blood of Christ.             
Logged

kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2012, 01:36:43 PM »

The Eucharist is shown to be the true body and blood of Christ.
I believe it is spiritual, since Jesus went [physically] back to the Father and he will return [physically] in the future to defeat the Antichrist.

Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So Jesus is spiritually with us. In the same way He is spiritually present in the Eucharist.

Quote
It is the glorified Spirit-animated Flesh and Blood of the risen Christ [1 Corinthians 15].
Can you please be more specific as to which verse.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2012, 01:39:11 PM »

When the priest processes with the Holy Gifts during the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified, we prostrate ourselves before the Eucharistic Christ and adore him.  As St Nicholas Cabasilas notes, this act is qualitatively different from the veneration offered to the oblations at the Great Entrance or to the icon of our Lord: it is true adoration.  We typically do not offer services of adoration outside the Liturgy, but within the Liturgy we do not hesitate to adore and pray to the Body and Blood of Christ.             

Do Eastern Orthodoxy view the terms [worship] and [adoration] as having the same meaning or differently when it is related to the Eucharist?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2012, 01:53:08 PM »

I believe it is spiritual, since Jesus went [physically] back to the Father and he will return [physically] in the future to defeat the Antichrist.

Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So Jesus is spiritually with us. In the same way He is spiritually present in the Eucharist.

He is physically present in the Eucharist.  At the Road to Emmaus, Jesus consecrated the bread and then disappeared.

Also your understanding of "physically" is incorrect.  As shown after the Resurrection, Jesus just shows up and disappears at will, even through locked doors.  And John 6 also states that Jesus said that his flesh is food indeed.  His flesh, not his spirit.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2012, 02:25:04 PM »

I believe it is spiritual, since Jesus went [physically] back to the Father and he will return [physically] in the future to defeat the Antichrist.

Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So Jesus is spiritually with us. In the same way He is spiritually present in the Eucharist.

He is physically present in the Eucharist.  At the Road to Emmaus, Jesus consecrated the bread and then disappeared.
He just broke bread and disappeared. He did not celebrate Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy before breaking the bread.

One more thing to note is that Jesus did not disappear at the Last Supper after He said "This is my body" "This is my blood"


Quote
Also your understanding of "physically" is incorrect.  As shown after the Resurrection, Jesus just shows up and disappears at will, even through locked doors.  And John 6 also states that Jesus said that his flesh is food indeed.  His flesh, not his spirit.
Jesus was resurrected in the same physical body which was glorified. So yes, His physical body had such powers to appear and disappear at will.

One question, having having received the Eucharist the first time, do you have eternal life right now?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 02:34:06 PM by kx9 » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2012, 03:01:04 PM »

He just broke bread and disappeared. He did not celebrate Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy before breaking the bread.

On the contrary, he spoke to the two disciples about Scripture on the road.  And then at the end they celebrated the Eucharist.  This is why we have today the Liturgy of the Word (or Liturgy of the Catechumen) and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (or Liturgy of the Faithful).  Emmaus actually is the primordial Liturgy which then set the structure of the Liturgies we have today.

One more thing to note is that Jesus did not disappear at the Last Supper after He said "This is my body" "This is my blood"

He was still fulfilling the entire Passion over the next few days.


Jesus was resurrected in the same physical body which was glorified. So yes, His physical body had such powers to appear and disappear at will.

And he has the power to multiply the loaves as shown in the feeding of the 5000.

One question, having having received the Eucharist the first time, do you have eternal life right now?

"Eternal" and "now" is an oxymoron.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2012, 03:26:47 PM »

The Eucharist is shown to be the true body and blood of Christ.
I believe it is spiritual, since Jesus went [physically] back to the Father and he will return [physically] in the future to defeat the Antichrist.

Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So Jesus is spiritually with us. In the same way He is spiritually present in the Eucharist.

Quote
It is the glorified Spirit-animated Flesh and Blood of the risen Christ [1 Corinthians 15].
Can you please be more specific as to which verse.

KX9,

I don't believe that a distinction between "physical" and "spiritual" is a very healthy way for a Christian to think. There are physical things, and there are non-physical things; some are Spiritual, some are carnal. The Holy Spirit is non-physical and Spiritual, but the risen body of the Resurrection is physical and also Spiritual. Satan and the demons are non-physical but carnal. An incarnate life lived to God is Spiritual. What do we mean when we say spiritual?

A life lived according to the Holy Spirit.

Something related to the Spirit of God working in the world.

In relation to your human spirit, which is currently incarnate because you are a material being.

Bodiless powers like Angels and Demons? I think we only really mean that when we're talking about the spiritual world/realm, I.E. the existence of disembodied spirits. To quote a wise man here, I cannot recall whom: God the Father is Spirit, but he is not "a spirit".

Now, regarding 1:Corinthians 15, I was referring to the following verses:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, 'The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.' The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit."

It is important to know that the English translations "natural body" and "spiritual body" are exceedingly poor. The word used for "natural" is "psyche", which means soul; it is a translation of the Hebrew word "nephesh", which is what God makes the first Adam when he is created ('the first Adam became a living soul'). Thus, this "soulish existence" is the manner in which a fallen human body exists; an existence which, as you and I know well, is quite physical.

"Spiritual body" could perhaps be better dynamically translated "Spirit-animated" or "Spiritualized" body. This body is not dis-incarnate or immaterial because of its relation to the spiritual realm. Rather, this body exists in a new mode of existence defined, sustained, and constituted from the Holy Spirit of God. It is this manner of existence which Christ gives to us when he gives us His Resurrected body as a prototype for our own, in Him. Therefore 1 Corinthians 15:44 could perhaps better be translated: "It is sown a Soulish Body, it is raised a Spiritualized Body."

If you would like to see a short related video, here is Anglican scholar N.T. Wright speaking briefly on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jNaVgyqUD8

So we have seen that the Resurrected Body of Christ, which he ultimately shares with the totality of his Bride, is both Spiritualized and physical. So then, it is good to see also that this body, with its new mode of Spiritualized existence in the Coming Age of the Reign of Heaven which is already at hand, does not relate to reality in the same way that Soulish flesh does.

Christ's spiritualized flesh can be broken, but not divided. Remember, even before His Ascension, Christ stood somehow at the very tabernacle of heaven making atonement for the world, and one cannot say that he did this without his body, because he was Incarnate once for all, completely, for the Salvation of the World. Christ is not part incarnate; the Logos is not floating around somewhere with a little man Jesus occupying some of His time. This is a form of Docetism condemned by almost every major Christian denomination. Even the early Messianic Adoptionists didn't think some ghost Jesus was floating around apart from Jesus.

We believe that when we gather as Church to offer our bodies broken and our blood shed to God through Christ's, that we *really* enter into the heavenly altar and receive Christ's once-for-all atonement. Here we receive it in the only manner that an incarnate world could: bread to flesh, blood to body. This is the Christian faith as we understand it.

Quote
One question, having having received the Eucharist the first time, do you have eternal life right now?

Yes. We believe this is the quintessential work of belief through which all of our charity, suffering, faith and love are recapitulated in Christ. As he said: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die." and "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Hopefully this has been somehow helpful to you.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 03:29:31 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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2012, 03:30:14 PM »

On the contrary, he spoke to the two disciples about Scripture on the road.  And then at the end they celebrated the Eucharist.  This is why we have today the Liturgy of the Word (or Liturgy of the Catechumen) and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (or Liturgy of the Faithful).  Emmaus actually is the primordial Liturgy which then set the structure of the Liturgies we have today.


You are the first person I have heard claiming that this passage is also referring Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy.

So far I haven't heard of a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox interpreting this passage as celebrating of the Eucharist. One more important point is that no wine (blood) is mentioned in these passages. So what makes you think it is referring to Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy?

One more thing, as an Eastern Catholic, is your Church in communion with the Vatican?

One more thing to note is that Jesus did not disappear at the Last Supper after He said "This is my body" "This is my blood"

Quote
He was still fulfilling the entire Passion over the next few days.
This is unclear. Please be more specific.

Jesus was resurrected in the same physical body which was glorified. So yes, His physical body had such powers to appear and disappear at will.

Quote
And he has the power to multiply the loaves as shown in the feeding of the 5000.
True, but this is irrelevant to the OP.

One question, having having received the Eucharist the first time, do you have eternal life right now?

Quote
"Eternal" and "now" is an oxymoron.
So are you denying what Jesus said? It is very simple and clear : John 6:54

John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

If you believe that Jesus is speaking literally, then you have eternal life, otherwise you are rejecting what He has said.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 03:33:07 PM by kx9 » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2012, 03:52:04 PM »

One more thing, as an Eastern Catholic, is your Church in communion with the Vatican?
Yeah, he's part of that communion.
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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2012, 03:55:11 PM »

The Eucharist is shown to be the true body and blood of Christ.
I believe it is spiritual, since Jesus went [physically] back to the Father and he will return [physically] in the future to defeat the Antichrist.

Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So Jesus is spiritually with us. In the same way He is spiritually present in the Eucharist.

Quote
It is the glorified Spirit-animated Flesh and Blood of the risen Christ [1 Corinthians 15].
Can you please be more specific as to which verse.

KX9,

I don't believe that a distinction between "physical" and "spiritual" is a very healthy way for a Christian to think. There are physical things, and there are non-physical things; some are Spiritual, some are carnal. The Holy Spirit is non-physical and Spiritual, but the risen body of the Resurrection is physical and also Spiritual. Satan and the demons are non-physical but carnal. An incarnate life lived to God is Spiritual. What do we mean when we say spiritual?

A life lived according to the Holy Spirit.

Something related to the Spirit of God working in the world.

In relation to your human spirit, which is currently incarnate because you are a material being.

Bodiless powers like Angels and Demons? I think we only really mean that when we're talking about the spiritual world/realm, I.E. the existence of disembodied spirits. To quote a wise man here, I cannot recall whom: God the Father is Spirit, but he is not "a spirit".

Now, regarding 1:Corinthians 15, I was referring to the following verses:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, 'The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.' The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit."

It is important to know that the English translations "natural body" and "spiritual body" are exceedingly poor. The word used for "natural" is "psyche", which means soul; it is a translation of the Hebrew word "nephesh", which is what God makes the first Adam when he is created ('the first Adam became a living soul'). Thus, this "soulish existence" is the manner in which a fallen human body exists; an existence which, as you and I know well, is quite physical.

"Spiritual body" could perhaps be better dynamically translated "Spirit-animated" or "Spiritualized" body. This body is not dis-incarnate or immaterial because of its relation to the spiritual realm. Rather, this body exists in a new mode of existence defined, sustained, and constituted from the Holy Spirit of God. It is this manner of existence which Christ gives to us when he gives us His Resurrected body as a prototype for our own, in Him. Therefore 1 Corinthians 15:44 could perhaps better be translated: "It is sown a Soulish Body, it is raised a Spiritualized Body."

If you would like to see a short related video, here is Anglican scholar N.T. Wright speaking briefly on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jNaVgyqUD8

So we have seen that the Resurrected Body of Christ, which he ultimately shares with the totality of his Bride, is both Spiritualized and physical. So then, it is good to see also that this body, with its new mode of Spiritualized existence in the Coming Age of the Reign of Heaven which is already at hand, does not relate to reality in the same way that Soulish flesh does.

Christ's spiritualized flesh can be broken, but not divided. Remember, even before His Ascension, Christ stood somehow at the very tabernacle of heaven making atonement for the world, and one cannot say that he did this without his body, because he was Incarnate once for all, completely, for the Salvation of the World. Christ is not part incarnate; the Logos is not floating around somewhere with a little man Jesus occupying some of His time. This is a form of Docetism condemned by almost every major Christian denomination. Even the early Messianic Adoptionists didn't think some ghost Jesus was floating around apart from Jesus.

We believe that when we gather as Church to offer our bodies broken and our blood shed to God through Christ's, that we *really* enter into the heavenly altar and receive Christ's once-for-all atonement. Here we receive it in the only manner that an incarnate world could: bread to flesh, blood to body. This is the Christian faith as we understand it.

Your post is a bit hard to understand, as no other Christian has come up with such a viewpoint regarding "spiritual" before, nevertheless your post was informative. I will try and obtain more information regarding this from some other websites.


Quote
One question, having having received the Eucharist the first time, do you have eternal life right now?

Quote
Yes. We believe this is the quintessential work of belief through which all of our charity, suffering, faith and love are recapitulated in Christ. As he said: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die." and "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Hopefully this has been somehow helpful to you.

Hmm... like some Protestant denominations, Do the EOC teach/believe that a person's salvation cannot be lost?

P.S : May I ask what "Supporter of OCA Cynocephaly" and "Protokentarchos" (below your username next to your posts) mean?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 03:56:34 PM by kx9 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2012, 03:59:06 PM »

Cynokephaly means dog-headedness. I think it's a wordplay on autocephaly.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2012, 04:00:30 PM »

Hmm... like some Protestant denominations, Do the EOC teach/believe that a person's salvation cannot be lost?

No.

Quote
P.S : May I ask what "Supporter of OCA Cynocephaly" and "Protokentarchos" (below your username next to your posts) mean?

The first is a joke of mine. In some obscure folk legends, St. Christopher had the head of a dog (cynocephalus). "Autocephaly" is when a local church governs itself. So the joke is the play on words and the implication that they would do well under St. Christopher's leadership.

"Protokentarchos" is a rank in the Eastern Roman military/government. A lot of people here find that history interesting, and so the moderators on this forum made it so that you "go up a rank" as you hit certain numbers of posts. It doesn't have any religious significance and is just for fun.
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.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2012, 04:02:27 PM »

no other Christian has come up with such a viewpoint regarding "spiritual" before
You'll find that many have, especially in the EOC and, as I pointed out, among certain people in other denominations like N.T. Wright.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 04:02:35 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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2012, 04:15:28 PM »


Quote
No.
I see this as a rejection of what Jesus said in John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Eternal life is a gift which cannot be taken away. Since you believe that Jesus was speaking literally and you have received the Eucharist, you have eternal life and that cannot be lost.

Jesus was speaking spiritually, as He has explained this to his disciples later as recorded in John 6:63.
John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.



Does the EOC believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice (made present again and again everyday) like Roman Catholics believe?

Quote
The first is a joke of mine. In some obscure folk legends, St. Christopher had the head of a dog (cynocephalus). "Autocephaly" is when a local church governs itself. So the joke is the play on words and the implication that they would do well under St. Christopher's leadership.

Quote
"Protokentarchos" is a rank in the Eastern Roman military/government. A lot of people here find that history interesting, and so the moderators on this forum made it so that you "go up a rank" as you hit certain numbers of posts. It doesn't have any religious significance and is just for fun.
Nice info Smiley May I have the complete list of rankings on this forum and their meanings?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 04:26:03 PM by kx9 » Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2012, 04:30:09 PM »



I see this as a rejection of what Jesus said in John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.


Does the EOC believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice (made present again and again everyday) like Roman Catholics believe?


I think you forgot about the bold part.

Edit: To clarify, the Eternal Life will be in the World to Come, not this world.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 04:33:05 PM by sheenj » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2012, 04:33:48 PM »

Eternal life is a gift which cannot be taken away. Since you believe that Jesus was speaking literally and you have received the Eucharist, you have eternal life and that cannot be lost.
You're right. It cannot be lost or taken away. But it can be thrown away. God gives us free will 'till the end.

"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, 'A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,' and, 'A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Yes, he was speaking Spiritually, that is, in and by the Holy Spirit. And the Soulish, corruptible flesh of this fallen age is sewn with the seed of death and must be denied until the very end.

But not flesh in any sense of the word, for our same Lord said to his disciples: "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Does the EOC believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice (made present again and again everyday) like Roman Catholics believe?

No, if a "re-sacrifice" is meant.

We believe that the Eucharist is co-participation in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ which he made on Calvary and at the Altar of Heaven. This is why those ancient Christians who speak a language similar to Christ's own language call the Liturgy "Qurbana", that is, Offering.

Quote
May I have the complete list of rankings on this forum and their meanings?
Not sure where to find that. Perhaps a moderator can help.
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.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2012, 04:34:48 PM »

Edit: To clarify, the Eternal Life will be in the World to Come, not this world.
I disagree. We have eternal life now if we believe in the Son of Man because God's kingdom is already upon Christians, in power. AND We have eternal life when he raises us up on the last day.
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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2012, 04:51:42 PM »

Quote
Eternal life is a gift which cannot be taken away. Since you believe that Jesus was speaking literally and you have received the Eucharist, you have eternal life and that cannot be lost.
You're right. It cannot be lost or taken away. But it can be thrown away. God gives us free will 'till the end.
You're right. I agree with this.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Quote
Yes, he was speaking Spiritually, that is, in and by the Holy Spirit. And the Soulish, corruptible flesh of this fallen age is sewn with the seed of death and must be denied until the very end.
I agree with that too, but Catholicism denies that Jesus was speaking spiritually. They take Him literally.

According to some of the EO posters on this thread, it also appears that the EOC takes Jesus literally, so I am confused.

Quote
But not flesh in any sense of the word, for our same Lord said to his disciples: "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
I disagree. It is flesh, it is "glorified flesh"

Does the EOC believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice (made present again and again everyday) like Roman Catholics believe?

Quote
No, if a "re-sacrifice" is meant.
At the Last Supper, Jesus told His disciples to do this in remembrance of Him. It is therefore a remembrance, not a sacrifice that must be repeated everyday.

Quote
We believe that the Eucharist is co-participation in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ which he made on Calvary and at the Altar of Heaven. This is why those ancient Christians who speak a language similar to Christ's own language call the Liturgy "Qurbana", that is, Offering.
Agreed, but it can't be literal, it is the spiritual presence as Jesus said in John 6:63 :

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Do you agree that the Eucharist is the Spiritual Presence of Jesus? The next only Physical presence of Jesus on Earth is when He will return to destroy the Antichrist in the future.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 04:53:02 PM by kx9 » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2012, 05:28:22 PM »

You are the first person I have heard claiming that this passage is also referring Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy.

So far I haven't heard of a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox interpreting this passage as celebrating of the Eucharist.

I learned this from the homily of an RC priest.  Makes sense too if you think about it.  That is how the Apostles did their Liturgies in the early days of the Church.  They went to the temple or synagogue to discuss Scripture, then go home to break bread.  Its not like they had all the rituals we have today which actually took over a millennium to develop.

One more important point is that no wine (blood) is mentioned in these passages. So what makes you think it is referring to Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy?

One more thing, as an Eastern Catholic, is your Church in communion with the Vatican?


Scripture doesn't mention everything.  It is written to make a point, not to get an accounting of every little bit.  It is not uncommon for them to have some wine travelling and especially they were supposed to go for supper.  Also the Eucharist also is the fullness of Christ.  I know this is RC theology but I do not think any Orthodox can argue againts it.  Christ is alive and therefore his flesh and body are not separate.


This is unclear. Please be more specific.


Christ still has to die and be resurrected.

True, but this is irrelevant to the OP.

I was responding to your statement.


So are you denying what Jesus said? It is very simple and clear : John 6:54

John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

If you believe that Jesus is speaking literally, then you have eternal life, otherwise you are rejecting what He has said.

Where did I deny what Jesus said?  I just said that "now" and "eternal" are oxymorons.  Both refer to time, one being a specific point in time (now) and the other meaning timeless (eternity).  So if I have life for all eternity, does it matter if it is now or tomorrow or the day I die or the day I am resurrected?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2012, 07:23:15 PM »

I agree with that too, but Catholicism denies that Jesus was speaking spiritually. They take Him literally.
Spiritually vs. Literally? Do you mean, rather, "metaphorically" or "allegorically" rather than literally? Because there is nothing not-literal about the Spiritual.

Quote
But not flesh in any sense of the word, for our same Lord said to his disciples: "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
I disagree. It is flesh, it is "glorified flesh"

I know it is flesh. When I said "not flesh in any sense of the word", I meant "it is not right to CONDEMN the flesh in every sense of the word 'flesh".

At the Last Supper, Jesus told His disciples to do this in remembrance of Him. It is therefore a remembrance, not a sacrifice that must be repeated everyday.
It is participation in a sacrifice which was once made. This participatory offering is called an Anemnesis Offering. It was foretold in the bread offered as showbread in Anemnesis. The word translated as "remembrance" is better translated "re-presentation", that is, you are not merely mentally recalling Christ's sacrifice, you are making it present at that moment.

The Epistle to the Hebrews contrasts the Anemnesis of the Old Covenant, which re-presented sin, with that of Christ, which re-presents the once-for-all atonement.


Do you agree that the Eucharist is the Spiritual Presence of Jesus?
I don't believe that Spiritual is the opposite of literal, or that Spiritual is the opposite of physical. That belief is more in line with the Baha'i faith, Manicheanism, etc. than Christianity.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 07:27:46 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.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2012, 06:17:44 AM »

Nice info Smiley May I have the complete list of rankings on this forum and their meanings?

here
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2012, 12:36:47 PM »

Nice info Smiley May I have the complete list of rankings on this forum and their meanings?

here

Thanks Michal,

However, can you or someone explain the full meaning of these :

Archon           
Protokentarchos - (already explained : A rank in the Eastern Roman military/government)
Merarches
Taxiarches
Hoplitarches
Stratopedarches
Protostrator
Protospatharios
Tourmarches
Hypatos
Strategos
Domestikos tou thematos
Domestikos ton Scholon
Megas Domestikos
Exarchos
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2012, 12:41:22 PM »

They're all titles and honorifics from the Byzantine Empire. An Archon was a ruler, a strategos was a governor and an Exarchos was a ruler of a huge province (Italy and Africa had exarchs)
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 12:41:32 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2012, 01:00:01 PM »

In Luke 24:35:  King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
"And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread."

Sounds very liturgical to me.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2012, 01:06:26 PM »

You are the first person I have heard claiming that this passage is also referring Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy.

So far I haven't heard of a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox interpreting this passage as celebrating of the Eucharist.

Quote
I learned this from the homily of an RC priest.  Makes sense too if you think about it.  That is how the Apostles did their Liturgies in the early days of the Church.  They went to the temple or synagogue to discuss Scripture, then go home to break bread.  Its not like they had all the rituals we have today which actually took over a millennium to develop.

Let me hear about this from the EO... Do you EO people agree that Luke 24:13-35 was the celebrating of Divine Liturgy by the second time by Jesus?


Quote
Scripture doesn't mention everything.
It is a very common argument used by Roman Catholics (and maybe also EO) to argue that a particular practice can be biblical when it probably isn't.

However, whatever is in Scripture is all we need to know that we have Eternal life.

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Therefore there is no need for additional doctrines that are derived from Holy Tradition/Sacred Tradition. It all seems to put additional burden on the RC/EO with more than what is needed for salvation.


Quote
It is written to make a point, not to get an accounting of every little bit.  It is not uncommon for them to have some wine travelling and especially they were supposed to go for supper.  Also the Eucharist also is the fullness of Christ.  I know this is RC theology but I do not think any Orthodox can argue againts it.  Christ is alive and therefore his flesh and body are not separate.

Yes, Christ is alive, but he is physically at the right hand of the Father. He cannot be physically present everywhere, but He can be spiritually present everywhere.

[Flesh and body] are the same. Did you actually mean [Spirit and Flesh]?


This is unclear. Please be more specific.

Quote
Christ still has to die and be resurrected.
Quote
He was still fulfilling the entire Passion over the next few days.

Huh? So even after bearing our sins in His body on the cross [ONCE], he still had to continue the Passion??? ... This is unbiblical.



So are you denying what Jesus said? It is very simple and clear : John 6:54

John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

If you believe that Jesus is speaking literally, then you have eternal life, otherwise you are rejecting what He has said.
Quote
Where did I deny what Jesus said?  I just said that "now" and "eternal" are oxymorons.  Both refer to time, one being a specific point in time (now) and the other meaning timeless (eternity).  So if I have life for all eternity, does it matter if it is now or tomorrow or the day I die or the day I am resurrected?
What did Jesus say :
John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...

But if he had said :
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life.... then it would agree with your statement. But he used [has] so you surely have eternal life. Do you agree with that?


« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 01:11:36 PM by kx9 » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2012, 01:09:34 PM »

They're all titles and honorifics from the Byzantine Empire. An Archon was a ruler, a strategos was a governor and an Exarchos was a ruler of a huge province (Italy and Africa had exarchs)

Please complete the list... Thanks.

EDIT : Oh, the list is already explained in that thread. That's enough there. Smiley
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 01:13:22 PM by kx9 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2012, 01:28:35 PM »

Yes, Christ is alive, but he is physically at the right hand of the Father. He cannot be physically present everywhere, but He can be spiritually present everywhere.


What are you, a Jew? An atheist? I consider it blasphemous to say Christ cannot do something.

However, whatever is in Scripture is all we need to know that we have Eternal life.

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Actually, John uses the first person singular, so if you were consequent you would say the writings of John are enough for salvation.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 01:32:50 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2012, 01:50:22 PM »

Yes, Christ is alive, but he is physically at the right hand of the Father. He cannot be physically present everywhere, but He can be spiritually present everywhere.

Quote
What are you, a Jew? An atheist? I consider it blasphemous to say Christ cannot do something.

Check what is written about my faith next to my posts. I'm a Christian.

Some things are illogical. Can you say that God can create a [square circle] ? However if I have made a mistake, then I apologize. However let me make some quotes from scripture :

Acts 1:11
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

This is true, and Jesus will return [physically] to defeat the antichrist. He lives in our hearts, and that is spiritual. He lives in us spiritually.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

In this verse, this means that Jesus lives in us spiritually, not physically. How can one put a physical body in another physical body?

But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always, even to the ends of the earth?  Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere?  No, this is not what is stated.

The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum.  This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ.  It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature.  It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ.  Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent, not in His human nature, but in His divine nature.

Hope that clears things up.

However, whatever is in Scripture is all we need to know that we have Eternal life.

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Quote
Actually, John uses the first person singular, so if you were consequent you would say the writings of John are enough for salvation.
Yes that is what is needed for salvation [summarized].
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2012, 02:00:03 PM »

Yes, Christ is alive, but he is physically at the right hand of the Father. He cannot be physically present everywhere, but He can be spiritually present everywhere.


Quote
What are you, a Jew? An atheist? I consider it blasphemous to say Christ cannot do something.

Check what is written about my faith next to my posts. I'm a Christian.

Some things are illogical. Can you say that God can create a [square circle] ? However if I have made a mistake, then I apologize. However let me make some quotes from scripture :

God can do anything, however, human logic is imperfect.

Acts 1:11
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."


This is true, and Jesus will return [physically] to defeat the antichrist. He lives in our hearts, and that is spiritual. He lives in us spiritually.

I see no conflict here.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

In this verse, this means that Jesus lives in us spiritually, not physically. How can one put a physical body in another physical body?

That doesn't follow from this verse at all. And you can put a physical body in another physical body by, you guessed it, eating it.

But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always, even to the ends of the earth?  Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere?  No, this is not what is stated.

The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum.  This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ.  It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature.  It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ.  Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent, not in His human nature, but in His divine nature.

Hope that clears things up.

It clears up that you're a nestorian.

Yes that is what is needed for salvation [summarized].

So the epistles of Paul and the other three gospels are "unnecessary burden for salvation" as well? Sola Joanno is a doctrine you invented?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 02:02:34 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2012, 02:14:40 PM »


Quote
I see no conflict here.
Then there is no need to call me a nestorian. I'm not one. There has probably been a case of misunderstanding.

Quote
That doesn't follow from this verse at all. And you can put a physical body in another physical body by, you guessed it, eating it.
Right, when we eat a physical body, it has to be dead first, or it dies after being eaten. If that is the case, then Christ is dead when He is in us... this is utter nonsense.

Quote
It clears up that you're a nestorian.
No I'm not a nestorian. As you said, human logic is imperfect. So I might have misunderstood. But looking forward to corrections from you.

God is something the human mind can never understand. No one can understand the Trinity [perfectly], but I believe and affirm it.


Quote
So the epistles of Paul and the other three gospels are "unnecessary burden for salvation" as well? Sola Joanno is a doctrine you invented?
No they are not. I'm saying that EO/RC traditions (from where additional doctrines are derived) is the "burden".

Sola Joanno... what does that mean? (Eastern Orthodoxy have some really unusual methods of naming stuff).
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 02:20:18 PM by kx9 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2012, 02:21:25 PM »


Quote
Then there is no need to call me a nestorian.

I meant that there is no conflict between the quote and the fact that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist

Quote
It clears up that you're a nestorian.
No I'm not a nestorian. As you said, human logic is imperfect. So I might have misunderstood. But looking forward to corrections from you.

You said that Christ is present in one nature but not in the other. Seperating His natures like that is nestorianism. Question: Is Mary the Mother of God?

Quote
God is something the human mind can never understand. No one can understand the Trinity [perfectly], but I believe and affirm it.

In that you are right.


Quote
So the epistles of Paul and the other three gospels are "unnecessary burden for salvation" as well? Sola Joanno is a doctrine you invented?
No they are not. I'm saying that EO/RC traditions (from where additional doctrines are derived) is the "burden".

Sola Joanno... what does that mean? (Eastern Orthodoxy have some really unusual methods of naming stuff).

It's a word play on Sola Scriptura (By Scripture alone). Sola Joanne is by John alone in Latin, that's a name I gave to your doctrine that everything needed for salvation is contained "summarised" in the writings of the beloved disciple.

PS: Joanno was a typo, I meant Joanne

Right, when we eat a physical body, it has to be dead first, or it dies after being eaten. If that is the case, then Christ is dead when He is in us... this is utter nonsense.

Why are you trying to bring logic into this? Foolishness to the Greeks and all that. Be content to believe that the Eucharist is the bread of life. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 02:30:13 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2012, 03:03:46 PM »


Quote
Then there is no need to call me a nestorian.

I meant that there is no conflict between the quote and the fact that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist

Quote
It clears up that you're a nestorian.
No I'm not a nestorian. As you said, human logic is imperfect. So I might have misunderstood. But looking forward to corrections from you.

Quote
You said that Christ is present in one nature but not in the other. Seperating His natures like that is nestorianism. Question: Is Mary the Mother of God?
Yes, Mary is the Mother of God, but personally I prefer to use the term Theotokos rather than "Mother of God".


Quote
It's a word play on Sola Scriptura (By Scripture alone). Sola Joanne is by John alone in Latin, that's a name I gave to your doctrine that everything needed for salvation is contained "summarised" in the writings of the beloved disciple.

PS: Joanno was a typo, I meant Joanne

When we believe in Jesus, we have eternal life. Jesus has mentioned this in the Gospels. We are saved by faith by looking to Jesus's death on the Cross and His resurrection from the dead on the third day.

What else is needed for salvation according to Orthodox theology?


Right, when we eat a physical body, it has to be dead first, or it dies after being eaten. If that is the case, then Christ is dead when He is in us... this is utter nonsense.

Quote
Why are you trying to bring logic into this? Foolishness to the Greeks and all that. Be content to believe that the Eucharist is the bread of life. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and [a]after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

First Jesus did not say "This becomes My Body". He said "This is My Body"

It is the same as Jesus spiritually saying "I am the door", "I am the true vine" or do you believe that Jesus is speaking literally?

John 10:9
9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine"

and in verse 29 of Matthew 26, Jesus calls it "fruit of the vine" not "blood" after consecration.

1 Cor 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" or "Flesh" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 03:14:14 PM by kx9 » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2012, 03:07:01 PM »

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?

"This bread is my flesh".
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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2012, 03:11:58 PM »

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?

"This bread is my flesh".

True, it is spiritually His Body.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 03:12:39 PM by kx9 » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2012, 03:13:12 PM »

Yes, Christ is alive, but he is physically at the right hand of the Father. He cannot be physically present everywhere, but He can be spiritually present everywhere.

There is not a disembodied part of Christ which "spiritually" (meaning disembodied) projects itself onto things like a ghost. Christ is FULLY incarnate. God became flesh and stayed flesh.

Glorified flesh is not the same as fallen flesh. Christ's body can relate to the world differently than ours, and CAN be interacted with in multiple places at once. You can partake of Christ's body without Him leaving the Father's side.

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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2012, 03:13:34 PM »


Quote
Then there is no need to call me a nestorian.

I meant that there is no conflict between the quote and the fact that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist

Quote
It clears up that you're a nestorian.
No I'm not a nestorian. As you said, human logic is imperfect. So I might have misunderstood. But looking forward to corrections from you.

Quote
You said that Christ is present in one nature but not in the other. Seperating His natures like that is nestorianism. Question: Is Mary the Mother of God?
Yes, Mary is the Mother of God, but personally I prefer to use the term Theotokos rather than "Mother of God".

Exactly, very good. Now don't ever seperate His natures again.

Quote
When we believe in Jesus, we have eternal life. Jesus has mentioned this in the Gospels. We are saved by faith by looking to Jesus's death on the Cross and His resurrection from the dead on the third day.

What else is needed for salvation according to Orthodox theology?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"?


Quote
Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and [a]after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

First Jesus did not say "This becomes My Body". He said "This is My Body"

And I fail to see how that matters.

Quote
It is the same as Jesus spiritually saying "I am the door", "I am the true vine" or do you believe that Jesus is speaking literally?

John 10:9-16
9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine"

I just take Him at His words when He repeatedly tells us that the Eucharist is flesh and blood. Besides, the Holy Fathers believed it too, so why shouldn't I?

Quote
and in verse 29 of Matthew 26, Jesus calls it "fruit of the vine" not "blood" after consecration.

1 Cor 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?


"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." -1 Cor. 10:16-17
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2012, 03:13:44 PM »

True, it is spiritually His Body.
Spiritually does not mean metaphorical or non-physical.
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.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2012, 03:14:31 PM »

Cyrillic, that isn't very convincing to him because he doesn't accept the same presuppositions we do. You have to communicate with people through a little more tact. He's not here attacking us or anything.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 03:15:04 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.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2012, 03:14:42 PM »

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?

"This bread is my flesh".

True, it is spiritually His Body.

His spiritual body? Sounds docetic to me.

Cyrillic, that isn't very convincing to him because he doesn't accept the same presuppositions we do. You have to communicate with people through a little more tact.

I am sorry, I can't help it when I go into polemistic mode. I'll just sit back now and calm down. The above remark will hopefully be my last polemical remark in this thread.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 03:25:04 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #50 on: September 20, 2012, 03:21:47 PM »

On an interesting side note, there was a debate on this topic between Lutherans and Calvinists. The Lutheran Doctrine of Commmunicatio Idiomatum (similar to our position) was pitted against the perceived Calvinist doctrine known as the Extra Calvinisticum (similar to KX9's position).
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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2012, 04:30:16 PM »

Yes, Christ is alive, but he is physically at the right hand of the Father. He cannot be physically present everywhere, but He can be spiritually present everywhere.

There is not a disembodied part of Christ which "spiritually" (meaning disembodied) projects itself onto things like a ghost. Christ is FULLY incarnate. God became flesh and stayed flesh.
Well, now I understand the whole thing. I never meant to separate Jesus's human and Divine natures. It just happened because we are thinking differently). Basically I meant that Jesus is spiritually present (Divinity, Body and Blood) in the Eucharist and Wine. This presence of His body and blood is spiritual. Under my understanding, if it was literally the body and blood of Christ, it would literally, truly turn to flesh and blood.

When Jesus consecrated the bread and wine at the Last Supper, it did not turn to literal flesh and blood (like how He turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana). Rather the bread and wine retained their appearance of bread and wine.

Now does my spiritual understanding of the Eucharist match up with your Orthodox understanding or not? Please let me know.
Quote

Glorified flesh is not the same as fallen flesh. Christ's body can relate to the world differently than ours, and CAN be interacted with in multiple places at once. You can partake of Christ's body without Him leaving the Father's side.

I believe that I partake of Christ's body Spiritually, (not like a disembodied spirit) Rather I mean a spiritual understanding... Again kindly let me know if this is the Eastern Orthodox understanding also?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 04:55:25 PM by kx9 » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2012, 04:44:10 PM »


Quote
Exactly, very good. Now don't ever seperate His natures again.
I never separated His natures in the first place. Rather there was some misunderstanding. Please read post #51 and let me know if it has a positive point that matches with the EO belief?

Quote
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"?
Let us take one example.

A man (who is not a Christian) is at his deathbed and is to die shortly. Just before his death, he hears the Gospel and repents and accepts Jesus as his Saviour, then he dies without receiving the Eucharist.

He accepted Christ as Saviour, yet could not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ since he died before that in this case.

Now according to the EO belief, is this person saved or not?


Quote
Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and [a]after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

First Jesus did not say "This becomes My Body". He said "This is My Body"

Quote
And I fail to see how that matters.

Quote
It is the same as Jesus spiritually saying "I am the door", "I am the true vine" or do you believe that Jesus is speaking literally?

John 10:9-16
9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

John 15:1 "I am the true vine"

Quote
I just take Him at His words when He repeatedly tells us that the Eucharist is flesh and blood. Besides, the Holy Fathers believed it too, so why shouldn't I?

Quote
and in verse 29 of Matthew 26, Jesus calls it "fruit of the vine" not "blood" after consecration.

1 Cor 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?

Quote
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." -1 Cor. 10:16-17

Please read Post 51 and let me know whether your belief agrees with my belief regarding the Eucharist?
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2012, 04:50:53 PM »

On an interesting side note, there was a debate on this topic between Lutherans and Calvinists. The Lutheran Doctrine of Commmunicatio Idiomatum (similar to our position) was pitted against the perceived Calvinist doctrine known as the Extra Calvinisticum (similar to KX9's position).

Um... One thing is that when Jesus died on the Cross, the two natures were split, and then later eternally reunited at His resurrection. Is this view biblical?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 20, 2012, 05:03:25 PM »

A man (who is not a Christian) is at his deathbed and is to die shortly. Just before his death, he hears the Gospel and repents and accepts Jesus as his Saviour, then he dies without receiving the Eucharist.

He accepted Christ as Saviour, yet could not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ since he died before that in this case.

Now according to the EO belief, is this person saved or not?

Only God knows.

Um... One thing is that when Jesus died on the Cross, the two natures were split, and then later eternally reunited at His resurrection. Is this view biblical?

It certainly was condemned on the 4th Ecumenical Council.

Well, now I understand the whole thing. I never meant to separate Jesus's human and Divine natures. It just happened because we are thinking differently). Basically I meant that Jesus is spiritually present (Divinity, Body and Blood) in the Eucharist and Wine. This presence of His body and blood is spiritual. Under my understanding, if it was literally the body and blood of Christ, it would literally, truly turn to flesh and blood.

When resurrected Christ went through closed doors after His Resurrection did He have a spiritual or literal body then?


Well... I've heard many times people described relations between Bread and Body in Eucharist as something similar to the hypostatic union in terms of manner.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 05:06:30 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 1,621



« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2012, 05:11:32 PM »

On an interesting side note, there was a debate on this topic between Lutherans and Calvinists. The Lutheran Doctrine of Commmunicatio Idiomatum (similar to our position) was pitted against the perceived Calvinist doctrine known as the Extra Calvinisticum (similar to KX9's position).

Um... One thing is that when Jesus died on the Cross, the two natures were split, and then later eternally reunited at His resurrection. Is this view biblical?

Biblical? To my knowledge, the Bible does not teach much if anything at all about natures. However, if we are to believe that Jesus was indeed the Word of God the Father become incarnate, and not merely a man united to God in the manner of the prophets, then we would confess that there was no separation after the incarnation (even at death), between the divine and human natures.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2012, 05:12:21 PM »

Yes, Mary is the Mother of God, but personally I prefer to use the term Theotokos rather than "Mother of God".

But these terms are the same. One is in ENglish and the other one in Greek...
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2012, 05:29:55 PM »

A man (who is not a Christian) is at his deathbed and is to die shortly. Just before his death, he hears the Gospel and repents and accepts Jesus as his Saviour, then he dies without receiving the Eucharist.

He accepted Christ as Saviour, yet could not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ since he died before that in this case.

Now according to the EO belief, is this person saved or not?

Quote
Only God knows.
Jesus said whoever believes in Him has eternal life. He believed, so he would have been saved, otherwise that man's faith was not just enough for salvation when Scripture said it was necessary for salvation.


Um... One thing is that when Jesus died on the Cross, the two natures were split, and then later eternally reunited at His resurrection. Is this view biblical?

Quote
It certainly was condemned on the 4th Ecumenical Council.
Thanks for this information. Can you give me the name of this heresy so that I can google it up and learn more?

It is quite strange, but that position (that His two natures were separated at His death and then eternally reunited) is still used by Christians to refute the claim of non-Christian cults, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christadelphians who claim that Jesus ceased to exist at his death and was resurrected by God.


Can you please explain 1 Peter 3:18

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

If His human nature and divine nature are inseparable, then how could He go and preach to the spirits in prison during the three days between His death and resurrection. Can you show a verse from Scripture which shows (implicitly or explicitly) that His divine and human natures are inseparable or were never separated?
 
I am asking this just so that I can understand this issue better and correct my thinking if I am wrong.



Well, now I understand the whole thing. I never meant to separate Jesus's human and Divine natures. It just happened because we are thinking differently). Basically I meant that Jesus is spiritually present (Divinity, Body and Blood) in the Eucharist and Wine. This presence of His body and blood is spiritual. Under my understanding, if it was literally the body and blood of Christ, it would literally, truly turn to flesh and blood.

Quote
When resurrected Christ went through closed doors after His Resurrection did He have a spiritual or literal body then?
He had a literal and Glorified Body.

Quote
Well... I've heard many times people described relations between Bread and Body in Eucharist as something similar to the hypostatic union in terms of manner.
Do you think that this view is biblical?
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #58 on: September 20, 2012, 05:32:18 PM »

Yes, Mary is the Mother of God, but personally I prefer to use the term Theotokos rather than "Mother of God".

But these terms are the same. One is in ENglish and the other one in Greek...
Theotokos means God-Bearer, while Mother of God wrongly seems to imply that God came into existence when He was born. So Theotokos is a "safer" term in my personal opinion.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 05:33:27 PM by kx9 » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 20, 2012, 05:50:13 PM »

Jesus said whoever believes in Him has eternal life. He believed, so he would have been saved, otherwise that man's faith was not just enough for salvation when Scripture said it was necessary for salvation.

Render (...) unto God the things that are God's

Quote
Thanks for this information. Can you give me the name of this heresy so that I can google it up and learn more?

It's some variation of Nestorianism. You shou should really need documents of Ephesus and Chalcedon Councils (and the Tome of Leo).
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 1,621



« Reply #60 on: September 20, 2012, 06:02:01 PM »

Can you please explain 1 Peter 3:18

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

If His human nature and divine nature are inseparable, then how could He go and preach to the spirits in prison during the three days between His death and resurrection.

I am not seeing the grounds for your objection. What problem does 1 Peter 3:18 pose for the idea that the human nature and divine nature were never separated, even at death?

Can you show a verse from Scripture which shows (implicitly or explicitly) that His divine and human natures are inseparable or were never separated?

The terms of your query are flawed. The Scriptures do not speak much of natures in the specific sense you are using them (perhaps unknowingly on your part). The question is one of whether the Christ is a single subject, or if He was in fact composed of two subjects, united by a moral union. In the former understanding, it is impossible to conceive of a division between the divine and the human natures, so that even when the Word had died in the flesh, He still lived. In the latter understanding, the two could be separated upon the death of one, since there was no ontological unity between them. But the latter understanding (that of Nestorius) is problematic because it makes Christ nothing more than a glorified prophet, when it is clear from the Scriptures (and I think you would agree), that the man called Jesus is in fact the very Word of God who had become flesh (just as it was written in the opening passage of John), and not just any man who was united with God according to energy but not according to nature.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 06:05:59 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #61 on: September 20, 2012, 06:33:43 PM »

Can you please explain 1 Peter 3:18

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

If His human nature and divine nature are inseparable, then how could He go and preach to the spirits in prison during the three days between His death and resurrection.

Quote
I am not seeing the grounds for your objection. What problem does 1 Peter 3:18 pose for the idea that the human nature and divine nature were never separated, even at death?
First of all, let me make it clear that this is not "my objection". Rather I'm asking this question in order to correct myself if I see my error.

I didn't really grasp your question. Do you hold the view that the two natures were separated at Christ's death (and reunited at His resurrection).

I noticed that your faith says :  Chalcedonian Automaton. Can you explain what this means? Are you an Orthodox Christian?

I will try to reply to the rest of your post later.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 06:35:03 PM by kx9 » 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: 1,621



« Reply #62 on: September 20, 2012, 06:50:57 PM »


Can you please explain 1 Peter 3:18

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

If His human nature and divine nature are inseparable, then how could He go and preach to the spirits in prison during the three days between His death and resurrection.

I am not seeing the grounds for your objection. What problem does 1 Peter 3:18 pose for the idea that the human nature and divine nature were never separated, even at death?
First of all, let me make it clear that this is not "my objection". Rather I'm asking this question in order to correct myself if I see my error.

Yes, but that doesn't really help me answer your question. How does believing that the natures of Christ are inseparable create problems with 1 Peter 3:18? I cannot answer your question without more information.

I didn't really grasp your question. Do you hold the view that the two natures were separated at Christ's death (and reunited at His resurrection).

No, I believe, as all Orthodox Christians do, that to say that the natures ever separated after the incarnation would be to profess the Nestorian heresy.

I noticed that your faith says :  Chalcedonian Automaton. Can you explain what this means? Are you an Orthodox Christian?

It's a joke (albeit, one that is not funny except to those for whom it was intended) Smiley . I am an Orthodox Christian.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 06:54:40 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: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #63 on: September 20, 2012, 08:48:18 PM »

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?

"This bread is my flesh".

True, it is spiritually His Body.

Who taught you that for something to be spiritual, it had to be metaphorical or non-physical?
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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #64 on: September 21, 2012, 12:57:28 AM »

Why is it called "Bread" not "Body" after consecration in 1 Cor 11:27 ?

"This bread is my flesh".

True, it is spiritually His Body.

Who taught you that for something to be spiritual, it had to be metaphorical or non-physical?
Spiritual is a term that is to be applied when it cannot be literal.

For example, when Jesus says "I am the door", "I am the true vine", In these two cases, if He was speaking literally, then He is literally a wooden door, and he is literally a vine. Since this is not true, but we believe Jesus, so in this case, we apply the term "Spiritual" here when Jesus says he is the door/vine.

If you think "Spiritual" is the wrong term to use here, then please suggest the correct term (which is used in Eastern Orthodoxy) instead of the term "Spiritual".
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #65 on: September 21, 2012, 01:45:13 AM »

Can you please explain 1 Peter 3:18

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

If His human nature and divine nature are inseparable, then how could He go and preach to the spirits in prison during the three days between His death and resurrection.

I am not seeing the grounds for your objection. What problem does 1 Peter 3:18 pose for the idea that the human nature and divine nature were never separated, even at death?
First of all, let me make it clear that this is not "my objection". Rather I'm asking this question in order to correct myself if I see my error.
Quote
Yes, but that doesn't really help me answer your question. How does believing that the natures of Christ are inseparable create problems with 1 Peter 3:18? I cannot answer your question without more information.

I'll be treading slowly and bit-by-bit on this one.

First of all, What does Nestorianism say?
Nestorianism says that Jesus has two distinct persons, a Divine person and a human person / That this union between the two persons was later broken.

The biblical view is that Jesus is one person with two natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature (both eternally united together in one person).

Question 1 : Are "Nature" and "Person" having the same meaning? (I'm asking this because some websites that describe and explain this heresy, use the term "person" and other websites use the term "Nature". Hence there's need to clear up this confusion.

Question 2 : Define "Human nature" and "Divine Nature". What does each specifically mean in regard to Jesus (from the EO viewpoint)?

Quote
Yes, but that doesn't really help me answer your question. How does believing that the natures of Christ are inseparable create problems with 1 Peter 3:18? I cannot answer your question without more information.
Question 3 : If Jesus went and preached to the Spirits in prison after his death (still retaining His Human and Divine natures in one person), does it mean that Jesus rose bodily and went to preach to the spirits in prison before He rose from the tomb bodily in a glorified body on the third day?


Please understand that I am not trying to defend Nestorianism, the purpose of asking these three questions (especially the third one) is to examine and discern the correct and biblical truth for myself.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 01:53:28 AM by kx9 » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #66 on: September 21, 2012, 01:56:17 AM »

Spiritual is a term that is to be applied when it cannot be literal.
Who taught you this? I have only heard this taught in the modern day by Baha'i and among neoplatonists.

The term for the way you use spiritual would be "allegory", "metaphor", "disembodied" or "immaterial" depending on the context. This is pretty much how the English language treats the subject except, as I said, in religions like the Baha'i.

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.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2012, 02:00:18 AM »

Spiritual is a term that is to be applied when it cannot be literal.
Who taught you this? I have only heard this taught in the modern day by Baha'i and among neoplatonists.

The term for the way you use spiritual would be "allegory", "metaphor", "disembodied" or "immaterial" depending on the context. This is pretty much how the English language treats the subject except, as I said, in religions like the Baha'i.


Okay, I see your point. So instead of "Spiritual", what term should I use?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #68 on: September 21, 2012, 02:22:47 AM »

Kx9, I'd like to make some comments regarding Nestorianism and how we understand Christ's incarnation.

First of all, What does Nestorianism say?
Nestorianism says that Jesus has two distinct persons, a Divine person and a human person / That this union between the two persons was later broken.

This is a very narrow view of Nestorianism, one you often find in protestant circles today. Historically, Nestorianism was the belief that the Divine being of God, was united to a human being, to form one person. This belief is based on the notion that a nature is the foundation of a person, and persons are not the concrete foundation, but are rather "masks" or temporary expressions; that is, persons don't reflect the reality of things. So while Christ was formed into one person, he was "really" two natures.

Because of this, Nestorians believed that the Divine subsistence of the God did not suffer, only the human subsistence. The "person" could be said to suffer, but this was meaningless, because the person wasn't the reality behind Christ.

I'm sorry if that's confusing, but Nestorianism is a very confusing heresy.

The Orthodox position, by contrast, is that the Person is the subsistent foundation of being, upon whom nature and essence are contingent. To encounter the Person is to encounter the reality of that thing. So the Person of the Son took upon himself human nature in addition to his divine nature. The natures aren't united to create a person; rather, a Person, the Logos, unites the natures in Himself. This is because the Person of Christ, not the natures, is the foundation.

To simplify, when Nestorians say "person" they mean something like a mask. When Orthodox say "Person", they believe that the Person is the reality.

If Jesus went and preached to the Spirits in prison after his death (still retaining His Human and Divine natures in one person), does it mean that Jesus rose bodily and went to preach to the spirits in prison before He rose from the tomb bodily in a glorified body on the third day?

We believe that Jesus has a human: Body, mind, soul, spirit. He is totally human. His Divine Nature does not substitute in for a human soul or spirit. He has a human soul and a human spirit. The belief that Jesus didn't have a human spirit, but rather his Divinity substituted for it, was condemned as the heresy of Apollinarianism. Christ assumes EVERY part of humanity in order to heal it. He even assumes human Sin and Curse on the cross to heal us.

So when Christ died on the Cross and descended into Sheol, he did so as a human being. However human beings are when they die, Christ became that way--- the exception being that his body did not see corruption because he was the Messiah, sinless and with power.

If you believe that when you die, your soul or spirit goes to the realm of the dead, then that is how Christ became. If you believe that the dead have some sort of bodily existence after death, but in a shadowy form, then that is how Christ became.

I would say, however, that when Christ preached to those in Prison, he was bringing them out of Prison and into Paradise, where there is life in its undivided fullness. But that is a topic for another time.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 02:28:24 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.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #69 on: September 21, 2012, 02:23:44 AM »

Okay, I see your point. So instead of "Spiritual", what term should I use?
For "I am the vine", symbolic would do.
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.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #70 on: September 21, 2012, 02:41:37 AM »

Please understand that I am not trying to defend Nestorianism, the purpose of asking these three questions (especially the third one) is to examine and discern the correct and biblical truth for myself.

kx9, I think that the real problem you are having in this thread is that you are attempting to interpret Holy Scripture apart from Holy Tradition, as if anyone could pick up the book and correctly understand the divinely intended meaning of the text.  But Orthodoxy maintains that the meaning of the Bible cannot be apprehended apart from Holy Eucharist, the Creeds and the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers, and the interior transformation by the Holy Spirit.  The Bible must be read in the Church, with the Church, in the life of the Holy Spirit.  Take a look at these articles:

Vladimir Lossky, "Tradition and Traditions"

Georges Florovsky, "The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church

Georges Florovsky, " Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers"

George Bebis, "Tradition in the Orthodox Church"

A good books to read is Scripture in Tradition by Fr John Breck.  Also see Richard Swinburne's critique of sola scriptura in his book Revelation.  Swinburne argues that the Bible is not self-interpreting, for "the Bible does not belong to an obvious genre which provides rules for how overall meaning is a function of meaning of individual books."  This is why the Church has always insisted that the Scriptures must be read in accordance with the creeds and the rule of faith.

I suggest, therefore, that you start a new thread precisely on the topic "How do I properly interpret the Bible?"   Until you get a grasp on how Orthodoxy reads and interprets the Bible, you will never understand what the Bible really teaches. 
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2012, 03:06:37 AM »

kx9 (don't worry, I'm in a better mood today), I suggest you read the twelve anathemas  of St. Cyril. Especially anathema 12. Someone suggested the Tome of Leo, but read that one in the light of St. Cyril's anathemas.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 03:13:48 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #72 on: September 21, 2012, 06:26:41 AM »

Okay, I see your point. So instead of "Spiritual", what term should I use?

"Metaphorical"
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #73 on: September 21, 2012, 07:25:12 PM »

Yes, Mary is the Mother of God, but personally I prefer to use the term Theotokos rather than "Mother of God".

But these terms are the same. One is in ENglish and the other one in Greek...

Miter Theou is Mother of God in Greek.

Mother of God wrongly seems to imply that God came into existence when He was born.
A mother is more than a synthesizer of existence.

The Orthodox saying here regarding Christ is, "Begotten in Eternity by the Father, begotten in time of the Virgin Mary". Mary conceived, gave birth to, and raised Christ even though she didn't beget his Person in Eternity. What is a mother if not that?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 07:30:23 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.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 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 0.275 seconds with 100 queries.