Author Topic: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?  (Read 23644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,410
  • Out for a stroll...
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #45 on: January 22, 2005, 01:09:21 PM »
Thanks, Marjorie.  I'm happy that you liked what I had to say. :)
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.


Don't believe everything you think.


The more I know, the less I know.   ;)

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,337
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #46 on: January 22, 2005, 01:24:58 PM »
Remember that at the Synod of Carthage in 411 A.D., it was established by Blessed Augustine and his blessed homies...

Nothing of significant value to inject into this discussion (I fall in the "Orthodox for Transubstantiation" camp, if you want to call it that), I just wanted to say that I love this!  "His blessed homies".  I have to use that one day. 

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2005, 11:37:46 PM »
Bob,

Thank you so much for your post. I agree with basically everything you said. Can't think of anything else to say!

Ian Lazarus,

Very good reminder, and beautifully stated. :)

Marjorie

My humble thanks, Sister. You are quite eloquent yourself. ;D



Nothing of significant value to inject into this discussion (I fall in the "Orthodox for Transubstantiation" camp, if you want to call it that), I just wanted to say that I love this! "His blessed homies". I have to use that one day.

Mor,

Please remind me to step away from you in a lightning storm when you do! :happy2: :Spam:

I joke, I joke. :P


Peace

Ian Lazarus :grommit:
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #48 on: January 25, 2005, 01:02:12 AM »
Didn't protestants reject transubstantiation because of the heady Greek philosophy wrapped up in this doctrine?
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #49 on: January 25, 2005, 10:06:47 PM »
When I myself was Protestant, my ministers were heavy into the wording in Luke that says "Do this in remembrance of Me". They would use it to disqualify the validity of the sacrament and make it simply into a "memorial meal", and not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. The "in memoria mei", from the Latin vulgate, can be confusing. I wonder if they translated the Greek word animensis in the same manner, or had access to Greek texts? I need to take a look back at my Calvin again, because his thoughts on the subject seem to be ambiguous at best. Its later on in the movement tht people began to theorize about it and make it to be a mental thing rather than a spiritual thing.

It never made sense then why we did it. If it was just a memorial, and all we were doing was remembering Christ, and we could do that by reading the Bible, why do it? Why did we need to pass the crackers and the grape juice down like offering plates down the aisle? It really just seemed that it was a left-over ritus from the Catholic days.

As I studied further, I discovered that the Greek meant to relive. I began to see a new reveence for it, and kneew it to be the Body and Blood. I give God the credit for that.

Ian Lazarus :grommit:  
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Tabby

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2005, 11:01:02 PM »
Catholic and orthodox is the ONLY religion that I know of who takes the Eucharist as real presence.  All the other relgions i have been to (and I have been in alot) is a symbol...a remeberence...that is it nothing more.
"If only I could die because then I would not die" ~ St. John of the Cross

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (Jn 3;16) "Mary so loved us that she gave her only b

Offline Jennifer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,154
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #51 on: January 25, 2005, 11:19:32 PM »
Catholic and orthodox is the ONLY religion that I know of who takes the Eucharist as real presence. All the other relgions i have been to (and I have been in alot) is a symbol...a remeberence...that is it nothing more.

Anglo-Catholics also believe in the Real Presence.  See this entry on the Pontifications blog. 


Offline aurelia

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 588
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2005, 08:34:02 AM »


I've wondered something, Anastasios...have any Orthodox fathers dealt with this sort of "physical properties of bread/wine" thing?

It does seem like something of an admission to say, "Even though it's now really, REALLY, REALLY the Body and Blood of Christ, it still does, admittedly, taste just like bread and wine."

Is it, as Bob, guesses, still ALSO bread and wine, somehow?

Oh, damn this hyper-analytical mind of mine! :-[


Well, we (my Fr and I) touched on this very thing in my first session with him (remember i am going through preparation to be crismated in the GO church) and that is pretty much the conclusion we got to. He emphasised the fact that it IS the Body and Blood, and he goes "now what do you suppose that tastes like? I said" um...wine with bread, and it sorta depends on the wine you used" and he sorta laughed and said "bingo" but the reverence and light in his face when he talked about it was something to see, as he re-emphasised the point of the BEING of the Body and Blood. Maybe you would have had to be there. :)

Did that make sense, and sorry for coming in so late, there are so many threads and issues here!

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2005, 08:50:29 AM »
Sounds as if you are in good hands, aurelia

Yes, makes sense
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline mathetes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2005, 03:35:33 AM »


Nothing of significant value to inject into this discussion (I fall in the "Orthodox for Transubstantiation" camp, if you want to call it that), I just wanted to say that I love this! "His blessed homies". I have to use that one day.

What do the Orthodox say about celiac disease, a condition aggravated by gluten in wheat? The Associated Press has run stories about some Catholics frustrated that they can't have bread made from rice instead of wheat. From what I've read, virtually all these Catholics must take only wine during Mass. One story mentioned a girl who joined the United Methodist Church because it was willing to serve her rice wafers.

Wouldn't celiac disease suggest that the bread remains even after consecration?

In asking this question, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or divisive. I guess I'm saying the oft-heard adage "All truth is God's truth"; thus, if people with celiac disease are getting sick from gluten eaten at Communion, that's God's way of telling us, through medical science, that the wheat's still there.

In Christ,
Mathetes
"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2005, 03:39:44 AM »
Quote
Wouldn't celiac disease suggest that the bread remains even after consecration?

No, because the properties of wheat are still there. God does not turn the bread into body in a plainly physical sense because it would be difficult to eat plainly physical flesh, and the plain transformation would nullify the faithful's acceptance by faith of what is happening.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline mathetes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2005, 03:57:55 AM »

... Remember that at the Synod of Carthage in 411 A.D., it was established by Blessed Augustine and his blessed homies that all Sacraments are valid as long as the priest received a valid ordination and the form of the sacramental rite was correct. It matters not one single iota what the priest believes or what sin he is involved in. Therefore, ALL sacraments of the RCC are valid. This also includes the Anglican Church, which has valid ordination practices (remember....it's the form that matters) and uses the Eucharist prayer over the Host. (Yes....even sacraments performed by the homosexual bishop are valid). Sure, the doctrines may be incorrect (sorry, Catholics....but I am Orthodox, after all ), but that has no bearing on the validity of the sacraments...otherwise we have sunk to neo-Donatism.

Granted....Carthage 411 was not an Ecumenical Council. But neither were any of the Donatist Councils considered Ecumenical.

And anyway....this event happened long before the Great Schism....so it was still one Church anyway.

It's hard to believe that God, who insists on being sanctified among his people and who slew Nadab and Abihu for their offering of strange fire ( Leviticus 10 ), would allow an apostate, perverted priest to give a valid sacrament. If such a priest gave such a sacrament and partook of it, wouldn't he be partaking unworthily and be at risk of the judgments ( sickness, death ) that the apostle Paul warned of ( 1 Corinthians 11: 29, 30 )? If such a priest continues partaking unharmed year after year, wouldn't that suggest his sacraments are no good?
"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).

Offline mathetes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2005, 04:03:47 AM »


No, because the properties of wheat are still there. God does not turn the bread into body in a plainly physical sense because it would be difficult to eat plainly physical flesh, and the plain transformation would nullify the faithful's acceptance by faith of what is happening.

Anastasios

Anastasios, it seems that you're reacting the way Galileo's critics did.  How can the wheat's properties be there apart from the wheat?
"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).

Offline TomS

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,186
  • "Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2005, 09:20:44 AM »
How can the wheat's properties be there apart from the wheat?

Why are you trying to hold God to the physical laws of this world?

Offline EkhristosAnesti

  • 'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Pope St Kyrillos VI
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2005, 11:45:49 AM »
Someone mentioned a story earlier about a priest doubting belief in the divine presence, and the the body and blood all of the sudden turning into flesh and blood.

Something similar happened in Egypt at a Coptic Orthodox church - a Muslim lady sneaked into the liturgy, she was very sick and she was heard from somewhere that the Eucharist has magical healing powers. As she watched the priest starting to break the bread, she started screaming at the top of her lungs, shouting that she saw a baby in the plate and that the priest was about to rip apart the baby. Im not 100% on the details, i believe my uncle told me this story.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2005, 11:48:25 AM by EkhristosAnesti »
No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Offline EkhristosAnesti

  • 'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Pope St Kyrillos VI
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2005, 12:44:11 PM »
Quote
It's hard to believe that God, who insists on being sanctified among his people and who slew Nadab and Abihu for their offering of strange fire ( Leviticus 10 ), would allow an apostate, perverted priest to give a valid sacrament. If such a priest gave such a sacrament and partook of it, wouldn't he be partaking unworthily and be at risk of the judgments ( sickness, death ) that the apostle Paul warned of ( 1 Corinthians 11: 29, 30 )? If such a priest continues partaking unharmed year after year, wouldn't that suggest his sacraments are no good?

Here's another story from the Coptic Orthodox church. There was a saint, i forgot his name, he was part of a church where the priest had become very corrupt in his dealings. One day whilst serving in the altar as a deacon, and thinking to himself, how such a priest can handle the precious body and blood of the Lord, he saw, just before the part of the liturgy where the priest starts breaking the bread, an angel come down from heaven, taking the priest and tying him up from the roof of the altar by his legs, as the angel took the form of the priest and finished off the liturgy.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2005, 12:44:37 PM by EkhristosAnesti »
No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Offline Arystarcus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2005, 11:42:13 PM »
Quote
What do the Orthodox say about celiac disease, a condition aggravated by gluten in wheat?  The Associated Press has run stories about some Catholics frustrated that they can't have bread made from rice instead of wheat.  From what I've read, virtually all these Catholics must take only wine during Mass. One story mentioned a girl who joined the United Methodist Church because it was willing to serve her rice wafers.

What is wrong with only partaking of the Precious Blood? In the Orthodox Church when infants receive and partake of the Heavenly Banquet they are served only the Precious Blood from the spoon.

It regards to that girl who left the Catholic Church because she could not receive the "wafer", although it is said that she cannot partake of it due to her condition, what is sadder still is that she is no longer receiving the True Body and Blood of Christ! It sounds like her or her parents were just hung up on receiving the wafer. If they had knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic Church then they would know that they are not receiving anything but a plain old wafer at the Methodist Church, and their daughter would be receiving the TRUE Sacrament at the Catholic Church, even if only received from the chalice.

In Christ,
Aaron

Offline Arystarcus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2005, 11:43:39 PM »
Quote
Here's another story from the Coptic Orthodox church. There was a saint, i forgot his name, he was part of a church where the priest had become very corrupt in his dealings. One day whilst serving in the altar as a deacon, and thinking to himself, how such a priest can handle the precious body and blood of the Lord, he saw, just before the part of the liturgy where the priest starts breaking the bread, an angel come down from heaven, taking the priest and tying him up from the roof of the altar by his legs, as the angel took the form of the priest and finished off the liturgy.

That is quite a story! If you happen to find any more details about this, would you please post a followup? I'd be interested in hearing more about it.

In Christ,
Aaron

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2005, 02:38:54 AM »
Quote
what is sadder still is that she is no longer receiving the True Body and Blood of Christ! It sounds like her or her parents were just hung up on receiving the wafer.

Since the the "communion" in question is from a schismatic body and not the Orthodox Church how is it the "True Body and Blood" of Christ"?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2005, 01:33:29 AM by +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é »

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2005, 02:02:27 PM »
MAT 18:20 " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Personally, I think it's in the asking. Protestants do not generally ask God that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. But the majority of Christians do. We ask and believe, as was shown to us by the Apostles, that the Real Presence be in the Eucharist to sustain us and to purify us. That is why it is effectual. Not to say that God cannot do it even if we don't ask. But the fact that we do, and ask God to act makes it so. We do these things in the confidence and the knowledge that He will be good to His word and what He as shown. We ask, He gives, we get, we become. Both the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox, as well as the Roman Catholics, believe in the True Presence and take it with the seriouness it derves as it is God and, as the Greeks put it in their final confession before Communion, "Recieve Fire", that being the Holy Spirit directly. Though we may not recognize their "communion" as it deals with their jurusdiction, can we deny God is present to those who ask for His presence? Just a thought.

Along with this, I have to ask our Anglican/Episcopalian contingent on this site at least their understanding of the Eucharist. When I was Episcopalian, I was told by afew priests something like Luther taught about consubstantiation, and yet afew others that it was merely asymbol, but if I wanted to believe in the true presence It was "OK". I have to say it confused me. I don't ask this to insult or drill you guys, but I wanted to know with similar statements being made by clergy and heriarchs in the Anglican Communion in the past. If it has been answered before, forgive me.


Gratefully,

Ian Lazarus :grommit:

« Last Edit: February 02, 2005, 02:03:58 PM by Ian Lazarus »
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,808
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2005, 03:24:10 PM »
Mathetes,

Quote
What do the Orthodox say about celiac disease, a condition aggravated by gluten in wheat?

I think it would be necessary to first establish that this problem exists within the Orthodox Church, before we would have to deal with what it implies about our sacraments (and sacramental theology). Since we don't believe that sacraments outside the Church are effectual or have grace (unless one holds to an Augustinian view on the matter), it would not come as a suprise that something like what you mentioned would happen in the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2005, 03:25:38 PM by Paradosis »

Offline Arystarcus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2005, 07:42:48 PM »
Quote
Since the the "communion" in question is from a schismatic body and noth the Orthodox Church how is it the "True Body and Blood" of Christ"?

I say this because although the Catholic Church is in schism from us, they are also of apostolic succession and their belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has never wavered, despite the fact of our obvious seperation.

I do not adhere to the idea of judginging who is graceless and who is not, because I honestly do not know - only God does.

I realize that some do not agree, but I am not asking anyone to share my opinion.

In Christ,
Aaron

Offline Jakub

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,749
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2005, 08:05:27 PM »
I'm with Majorie, its a mystery plain & simple period. Man in his infinite wisdom just loves to try to explain & so he can validate his theory.

james

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,337
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2005, 08:34:18 PM »
Since we don't believe that sacraments outside the Church are effectual or have grace (unless one holds to an Augustinian view on the matter), it would not come as a suprise that something like what you mentioned would happen in the Catholic Church.

So are you saying that a (pick your jurisdiction of choice) deacon would not get drunk if he had to consume a lot of the Holy Gifts after the Liturgy? 

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,808
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2005, 08:59:05 PM »
Touche. :)

Offline mathetes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2005, 10:20:34 PM »
Sorry to have been away, Paradosis.  You wrote in part:

... we don't believe that sacraments outside the Church are effectual or have grace (unless one holds to an Augustinian view on the matter. ...

Could you tell me how Orthodoxy's view of sacraments outside the Church differs from St. Augustine's?  Would the difference pertain to the question whether the bread and wine blessed by an apostate, perverted priest actually becomes our Lord's body and blood?

Thanks.
Mathetes
"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).

Offline mathetes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #71 on: February 02, 2005, 10:27:57 PM »


Here's another story from the Coptic Orthodox church. There was a saint, i forgot his name, he was part of a church where the priest had become very corrupt in his dealings. One day whilst serving in the altar as a deacon, and thinking to himself, how such a priest can handle the precious body and blood of the Lord, he saw, just before the part of the liturgy where the priest starts breaking the bread, an angel come down from heaven, taking the priest and tying him up from the roof of the altar by his legs, as the angel took the form of the priest and finished off the liturgy.

Like Arystarcus, I'd very much like to hear more details -- the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the story. Also interesting would be to learn whether the corrupt priest was aware of being tied up while the angel completed the liturgy.

In Christ,
Mathetes

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #72 on: February 02, 2005, 10:37:02 PM »
But for the sake of clarity it ought to be pointed out that the Orthodox Church has taught since the early days that heretics ands schismatics are not part of the Church and that the grace of the mysteries is within the Church. 

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #73 on: February 02, 2005, 11:02:42 PM »
Also I would like to add the text of the ROCOR Anathema against Ecumenism:

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that  Christ's Church is divided into so-called  "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of  life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be  formed in the future when all "branches" or sects  or denominations, and even religions will be united into one  body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries  of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the  baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;  therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these  aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or  defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of  brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated  Christians, Anathema!

Offline Arystarcus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2005, 11:16:51 PM »
Quote
But for the sake of clarity it ought to be pointed out that the Orthodox Church has taught since the early days that heretics ands schismatics are not part of the Church and that the grace of the mysteries is within the Church.

Nektarios,

Where can I read more about this?

Quote
Also I would like to add the text of the ROCOR Anathema against Ecumenism:

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that  Christ's Church is divided into so-called  "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of  life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be  formed in the future when all "branches" or sects  or denominations, and even religions will be united into one  body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries  of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the  baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;  therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these  aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or  defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of  brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated  Christians, Anathema!

I am no fan of ecumenism, nor do I believe in a branch theory of the Church.

In Christ,
Aaron

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,808
Re: what's wrong with Transubstantiation?
« Reply #75 on: February 02, 2005, 11:28:21 PM »
Augustine's idea was that if you followed a set pattern (consecration "properly" done, demonstrable line of succession to the apostles, etc.) that made your apostolic succession (and therefore, the sacraments) valid. That way, in his mind, you'd never have to worry about whether the priest was a sinner and the sacraments you were taking were invalid. In Orthodoxy, outside the true faith and true Church it doesn't matter how proper your consecration was, or who consecrated you. Apart from the proper faith, the "proper form" means nothing. Thus Catholics can trace their line back to Peter, but (as far as grace in the sacraments go) it means about the same thing as the guy in Nebraska who also claims to have apostolic succession because he was consecrated by a guy who was consecrated by a guy who was consecrated by a Catholic bishop in 1923. For that matter, the guy in his garage in Nebraska might even be closer to Orthodoxy in thought; but that's irrelevant. If I have misunderstood either Orthodox or Catholic thought, I am open to correction; but just so you know, I'm not looking to get into a debate on grace, or what the implications of what I'm saying are (whereas most modern Fathers tend to take a position of agnosticism, the early Fathers seemed to react violently to the idea that you would even ask questions about such things since it would be total speculation. Most of the quotes I've seen put forth a thought process like this one: there is only sacramental grace in the Church. Period. Now shut up and don't ask questions and let God deal with the rest.)

Btw, I just want to clarify something about all of this. I just saw a woman in a chat room say that she could never say that the Catholics or Baptists don't have grace because then she'd be condemning them to hell. Obviously a distinction needs to be made. I certainly am not condemning anyone to hell. The very fact that people convert demonstrates that God's grace works among non-Orthodox and even non-Christians. I'm only talking about sacramental grace. Just wanted to clarify.