OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 06:39:52 AM *
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 3560 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,033


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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,033


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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


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

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



« Reply #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
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


« 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
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
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


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

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



« Reply #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: 1,637



« 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: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,033


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

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

Posts: 21,536


« 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
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« 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 0.127 seconds with 56 queries.