OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 02, 2014, 03:12:52 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Long question about the Eucharist and the Lord's Supper  (Read 3146 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« on: August 10, 2006, 10:52:35 AM »

Re: the following: I'm not talking about the bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood in general or at every Eucharist. I know what the Church and what some of the Early Church Fathers teach about that.

I'm specifically asking what the Church teaches about what did or did not happen to the bread and wine at the Last Supper when Jesus gave the bread and the wine to his disciples. I.e., did they at some point during the Supper become his body and blood?

(Note: When and where I initially posed this question, by "the Church" I meant the Orthodox Church, but my question could perhaps apply to other Eucharistic churches, e.g., Roman Catholic, Anglican.)

Responses I got on another Forum seemed to say that the Church teaches that what happens at the Eucharist is what happened at the Lord's Supper, and that the power of the Holy Spirit brought this change about at the Last Supper just as He does at every Eucharist.

(I'm not seeking an explanation of how this might have happened; I'm simply asking: What does the Church teach about the bread and the wine at the Last Supper in terms of whether or not they became Christ's body and blood when/after he gave them to his disciples?)

(Side note: Someone at that Forum suggested to me that Christ's words at the Last Supper have a structure parallel to the Genesis creation statements, thus supporting the idea that they were changed into his body and blood just as God created ex nihilo and/or commanded the land and seas to bring forth living creatures. In Genesis, the Greek (LXX) uses imperatives, and each statement/command is followed by a statement(s) that what was commanded then occurred or became. In the Last Supper accounts, however, the simple equative/copulative verb is used, and there is NO following statement(s) that the bread and wine BECAME anything following Christ's "This IS ..." utterances. The only imperatives in the Last Supper accounts are "Take ... Eat ... Drink." There are no commands/imperatives for the bread and wine to BECOME his body and blood. Since Greek has a third-person imperative form, Jesus could have grammatically said: "Let this bread be(come) my body" and "Let this cup/wine be(come) my blood." But he didn't. Thus, I disagreed with this suggestion that the Last Supper accounts are parallel to the creation accounts.)

Getting no answer, I reposed my questions as follows:

1. When Christ said, "This is my body ... This is my blood," did he and/or the Holy Spirit change the bread and wine into his body and blood the same way as happens at the Eucharist - and thus he gave the disciples his actual body and blood (via the bread and wine) to eat and drink at the Last Supper, and not simply bread and wine?

2. Does the Church teach that what happens at the Eucharist is what happened at the Last Supper? (And vice-versa - i.e., that what happens at the Eucharist is what also happened at the Last Supper.)

The response I received was "Yes" to both questions, with the further statement: "Every other possible answer leads to nonsense."

HOWEVER, this response/answer can also, I think, lead to nonsense or at least some incongruities. If when Jesus gave his disciples bread and wine at the Last Supper, the bread and wine were changed into his body and blood, it means that before he was crucified, Jesus was able to - and in fact did - give his body and blood via bread and wine to his disciples. I.e., he gave his body before he gave his body, and he gave his blood before he gave his blood. And if they became his body and blood, then what need was there for him to be crucified if he was able to give them his body and blood before his crucifixion? True, his death might have been necessary for other things (e.g., to pay death its ransom; to atone for sins and/or to be a propitiatory sacrifice; etc.), but if the bread and wine became his body and blood before he was crucified, that seems to separate the Eucharistic transformation from the crucifixion and make it no longer dependent on the crucifixion having already taken place. Thus, the Eucharist is no longer a re-presentation of the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross, as he was able to give his body and blood to his followers apart from having died. If the Church teaches that the Eucharist is the same thing that happened at the Last Supper and that Christ at the Last Supper gave his disciples his body and blood in the transformed bread and wine, then the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the Last Supper when Jesus indeed gave his disciples his body and blood in the form of bread and wine ... but it is not a re-presentation of his death on the cross.

Also, there is no indication by Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul that Jesus called upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into his body and blood at the Last Supper. Why, then, if the Eucharist is the same thing that happened at the Last Supper, is the epiclêsis (the "calling upon" the Holy Spirit) necessary during the Eucharist to change the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, since Christ can give his disciples his body and blood just by giving them bread and wine - as he did at the Last Supper? This fact actually seems to support the Roman Catholic Church teaching that it's the words of institution by the priest (representing Jesus Christ), and not the coming/invocation of the Holy Spirit, that effect the transformation/change of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 11:00:15 AM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2006, 11:37:41 AM »

It's symbolic.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,443


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2006, 11:41:06 AM »

It's symbolic.

DISCLAIMER: The above is not an Orthodox teaching.ÂÂ

Anastasios
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 11:41:24 AM by Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2006, 12:02:48 PM »


It's symbolic.

DISCLAIMER: The above is not an Orthodox teaching.ÂÂ

Anastasios

I agree that the Orthodox do NOT teach that it's "symbolic" (though the word "symbol" as used by us is NOT what symbolon meant in NT times - it had more of a sense of realness back then than what we mean by "symbolic" now, e.g., The Nicene Creed is called "The Symbolon of The Faith" - it doesn't just "represent" or "stand for" what the Church believes; it IS what the Church believes).

If an Orthodox person believes that the bread and wine are just "symbols" of Christ's body and blood, I think they misunderstand what the Liturgy says and what the Church teaches.

So ... can anyone answer my questions?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 12:03:51 PM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2006, 12:09:06 PM »

If an Orthodox person believes that the bread and wine are just "symbols" of Christ's body and blood, I think they misunderstand what the Liturgy says and what the Church teaches.

I misunderstand nothing. I just believe that it is an incorrect teaching.
Logged
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2006, 12:16:57 PM »

I misunderstand nothing. I just believe that it is an incorrect teaching.

I thought that to be Orthodox meant to assent to the Church's teachings as being the correct teachings of Christ's church. (I'm just a catechumen, not Orthodox.) I.e., if the Orthodox Church teaches that the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood (in actuality and specifically after the epiklêsis) and don't just represent or stand as "symbols" for His body and blood, then that is indeed what an Orthodox Christian believes and in fact must believe in order to communicate.

TomS: What do you believe about the bread and wine and their relationship to Christ and His body and blood - either before or after the epiklêsis? And ... if your belief differs from Orthodox teaching (you say "it is an incorrect teaching" - and I'm trying to determine what you mean by "it"), where/how does it differ, and on what basis does it differ? Thanks!

But ... I'd still like answers to my questions, even if these questions to TomS are sort of a side issue.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 12:20:31 PM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2006, 12:26:52 PM »

I thought that to be Orthodox meant to assent to the Church's teachings as being the correct teachings of Christ's church.

Yes. That is exactly what it means.

Once again. I believe that it is simply a symbol. I do not believe that "it" actually physically or mystically turns into anything. It is remains bread and wine.
Logged
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2006, 12:30:01 PM »

Yes. That is exactly what it means.

Once again. I believe that it is simply a symbol. I do not believe that "it" actually physically or mystically turns into anything. It is remains bread and wine.


So, are you no longer Orthodox and/or do you still take the Eucharist (i.e., communicate)?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 12:39:26 PM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,443


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2006, 12:41:32 PM »

TomS has many times on this site revealed that he no longer believes in Orthodoxy but still attends a GOA Church because he likes Orthodox liturgical customs and Greek people.  So I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. At least he is honest and upfront though. I can respect that.

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2006, 12:44:12 PM »

So, are you no longer Orthodox and/or do you still take the Eucharist (i.e., communicate)?

I am still Orthodox. I still take the Eucharist.
Logged
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2006, 12:44:52 PM »

TomS has many times on this site revealed that he no longer believes in Orthodoxy but still attends a GOA Church because he likes Orthodox liturgical customs and Greek people.ÂÂ  So I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. At least he is honest and upfront though. I can respect that.

Anastasios

Okay. I was just confused because his "Faith" (profile) says "Orthodox".

Thanks.

So, are you no longer Orthodox and/or do you still take the Eucharist (i.e., communicate)?

I am still Orthodox. I still take the Eucharist.

So, I'm still confused.

But, whatever....
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 12:48:20 PM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,443


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2006, 12:52:59 PM »

I am still Orthodox. I still take the Eucharist.

Well, I thought you were being more upfront and honest these days, Tom.  You know you are not Orthodox in belief anymore.  You may be "Orthodox" in the cultural/membership card sense but your mind is not with Orthodoxy.

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2006, 01:49:37 PM »

And if they became his body and blood, then what need was there for him to be crucified if he was able to give them his body and blood before his crucifixion?

You know how temporality is "skipped" for us, and the one sacrifice is made present again and again for us in the future?  Same thing, just went the other way in time; had there been no actual crucifixion, the Eucharist that Christ performed and those the Church performs would be useless.

Quote
Also, there is no indication by Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul that Jesus called upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into his body and blood at the Last Supper.

Well, it says that He "gave thanks."  In offering it to the Father as the Great High Priest, the bread and wine were blessed and changed there.

TomS, I'm curious: Why in the heck do you still attend Orthodox services and commune with the Orthodox when your mind is apparently more with the Reformed churches?  To commune with a group you fundamentally disagree with but still think you know better than them seems arrogant at best and dangerous at worst.  If you believe the teaching on this matter (and others) is incorrect, why not go where the teaching is at least more in line with your personal way of thinking?  At least then you'd be honest with yourself and those who partake with you.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 01:49:49 PM by Pedro » Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2006, 01:52:04 PM »

Well, I thought you were being more upfront and honest these days, Tom.ÂÂ  You know you are not Orthodox in belief anymore.ÂÂ  You may be "Orthodox" in the cultural/membership card sense but your mind is not with Orthodoxy.

Well, whether you agree that I am Orthodox enough is another story. The fact is, I am a Chrismated Greek Orthodox.

I receive the Eucharist in rememberence of Him.

TomS, I'm curious: Why in the heck do you still attend Orthodox services and commune with the Orthodox when your mind is apparently more with the Reformed churches?

Hey, I married into a Greek Orthodox family; it's cultural!ÂÂ  Cheesy

If you believe the teaching on this matter (and others) is incorrect, why not go where the teaching is at least more in line with your personal way of thinking?  At least then you'd be honest with yourself and those who partake with you.

Because my beliefs will always differ from any formal religion. I believe that specific praxis does not matter.

At least then you'd be honest with yourself and those who partake with you.

I am honest with myself. And I certainly am not arrogant enough to think that my beliefs should/will have any impact on "those who partake with me". I certainly could care less about what the guy ahead/behind me believes. It has no impact on me unless I choose to let it have an impact on me.


« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 02:00:30 PM by TomS » Logged
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2006, 02:59:18 PM »

Hi Tom.

Reading your posts make me wonder something. If you go to your parish regularly, surely you must still make a confession once and a while?
Now, I don't need to know your personal info here so , let me explain where I am going with that question.
#1) If you know the Church teaching and know you are a dissenter then is this not something you feel you should confess to Father?
#2) If you have disregard and don't get mad at me, I'm just trying to help.
#3) If you have not, may you consider out of respect for the Priest as he has an accounting to make if I am correct and should not distribute the Eucharist to anyone unworthy. Not that I think he will suffer from a deception, but it really seems unfair to the Priest no?
#4) If this is a large matter for you (it must be to be willing to go against the Church) then have you tried to have a discussion with your Priest on this so you could at least give him a chance to change your mind on this?
#5) I am not judgeing you here or trying to tell you what to do but shouldn't I try to encourage you if you are slipping away from the Church in it's teachings?

That's it I guess. I am really sorry you are diminishing the best and most central aspect of the faith. It's sad. Not because I believe the Church to be right, but because the Church is offering you something and you are saying you don't like what the offer is.

Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2006, 03:34:48 PM »

Confession? In the GOA?  Shocked

Well, firstly, my Priest does not require confession, it is optional. Secondly, if you do confess, it only needs to be a general confession - no details, please.

Finally, I don't really care what the Priest's opinion is on this. If I feel that the teaching is incorrect, then why would I believe someone who is putting forth an incorrect teaching?Huh?

Logged
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2006, 03:55:36 PM »

Confession? In the GOA?ÂÂ  Shocked

Well, firstly, my Priest does not require confession, it is optional. Secondly, if you do confess, it only needs to be a general confession - no details, please.

Finally, I don't really care what the Priest's opinion is on this. If I feel that the teaching is incorrect, then why would I believe someone who is putting forth an incorrect teaching?Huh?



What you describe sounds like "Orthodox Lite" to me.

  • Confession, or confession before communicating, "optional" and "general"?
  • Eucharist given to people without ascertaining in some form or fashion if they hold to the non-negotiables of the faith?

Is this The Orthodox Church? Or is this ... something else?ÂÂ  Huh
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 04:00:43 PM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2006, 04:55:52 PM »

What you describe sounds like "Orthodox Lite" to me.

....
Is this The Orthodox Church? Or is this ... something else?ÂÂ  Huh

It's TomS's own interpretation of theology.

Some people in the GOA may disregard confession; sure, it happens.

OTOH, we have people who confess prior to any Liturgy they receive the Eucharist (since they understand what the Eucharist truly is), and/or at monthly intervals. There is a wide variance in partaking of the various Mysteries of the faith, just as there would be in any given population base.

If you make any decisions based on what TomS puts in print, I don't know who needs more help...you or him.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2006, 04:58:18 PM »

If you make any decisions based on what TomS puts in print, I don't know who needs more help...you or him.

My decisions about the Orthodox Church won't be based on TomS's statements re: the faith or his particular church, as he's already declared that he doesn't hold to, practice, speak for or believe the Orthodox faith.

Hopefully most of those in or leading the Orthodox Church believe the faith and properly lead and guide and teach its members in accordance with the faith.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 05:02:45 PM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2006, 05:13:18 PM »

My decisions about the Orthodox Church won't be based on TomS's statements re: the faith or his particular church

Excellent summarization of his position.Unfortunately, we sometimes hear of people who indicate they will make a decision potentially affecting their life due to 'something they read on OC.net'.

I am very glad to know you will not be led astray by certain posters.

Quote
Hopefully most of those in or leading the Orthodox Church believe the faith and properly lead and guide and teach its members in accordance with the faith.

Grant this, O Lord!
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2006, 05:23:51 PM »

Unfortunately, we sometimes hear of people who indicate they will make a decision potentially affecting their life due to 'something they read on OC.net'.

Send them my way. I can sign them up under me in this great multi-level marketing plan, so they can "get in on the ground floor," and make millions of dollars just by "drawing circles" and "talking to all their friends and relatives and everyone they know"!ÂÂ  Cheesy
« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 05:25:38 PM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2006, 06:27:43 PM »

Unfortunately, we sometimes hear of people who indicate they will make a decision potentially affecting their life due to 'something they read on OC.net'.

Yep. "The world is full of stupid people."

« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 06:34:32 PM by TomS » Logged
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2006, 07:44:05 PM »

<I am very glad to know you will not be led astray by certain posters.>

Yes, don't get led astray my posts.

1. No confession , no Communion
2. Dress appropriately
3. Only judge those on OC.Net
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
Carpatho Russian
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 285


Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory for ever!


« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2006, 08:30:20 PM »

1. No confession , no Communion
Could someone here please provide a Canon which states that confession is mandatory before receiving communion.  As far as I know, they are two distinct sacraments.
Logged

Zastupnice christianov nepostydnaja, chodatajice ko Tvorcu nepreložnaja, ne prezri hr’išnych molenij hlasy, popredvari jako blahaja na pomošč nas, virno vopijuščich ti: Uskori na molitvu, i potščisja na umolenije, zastupajušči prisno Bohorodice, čtuščich t’a.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,982


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2006, 09:29:33 PM »

C-R,

They indeed are distinct sacraments, and saying that the one requires the other every time cheapens both.  According to the canons one shouldn't go 3 sundays without communion... Assuming someone receives twice a month, confession shouldn't be necessary that often (but that's really a discussion for the spiritual father).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
KATHXOYMENOC
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147



« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2006, 12:15:54 AM »

FYI, this is the gist of the answer(s) I received (from various sources) to my questions:

The Orthodox Church refers to the "Last Supper" as the Mystical Supper, and every Divine Liturgy is a continuation of and participation in that Mystical Supper. At the Mystical Supper, Christ clearly stated that that which the apostles partook of was His Body and Blood. Likewise, in the Divine Liturgy the very Body and Blood of Christ is received. The Divine Liturgy is not a "reenactment" or a "re-creation" of the Last Supper as a past event. The Mystical Supper transcends time and space.
Logged

KYPIOCIHCOYCXPICTOC
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2006, 12:24:16 AM »

They indeed are distinct sacraments, and saying that the one requires the other every time cheapens both.ÂÂ  

I disagree. I'm not sure about EO's, but OO's tend to take the Pauline command that one approach the Eucharist worthily, very seriously. In the Coptic Liturgy, the Congregation is warned repeatedly, expressly through chant and verbal instruction, and symbolically through various liturgical acts. Repentence is a key condition to worthiness, and hence an essential pre-requisite to Communion. I'm not advocating the idea that one must undergo the Sacrament of Penance before each and every time they plan to partake of the Eucharist, but there is a clear relationship between these Sacraments that, rather than cheapening them, enhances their effectiveness.
Logged

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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,982


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2006, 12:51:14 AM »

AH, but according to your statement you don't disagree - you did say "I'm not advocating the idea that one must undergo the Sacrament of Penance before each and every time" and I said "saying that the one requires the other every time cheapens both."

All of the sacraments are closely related - living within the full Liturgical Life of the Church is critical to one's understanding and participation in the sacraments.  Worthy reception of the Body and Blood is important within the EO context as well; the difference is in how that is interpreted.  The slavic-tradition Churches took the position closer to your own (i.e. confession is essentially a pre-requisite to Communion; for them, though, it became an "each and every time" kinda thing); the greek-tradition Churches, OTOH, encouraged regular confession but didn't say it was necessary each and every time... instead, many of the Greek Tradition writers I have encountered emphasize the journey towards theosis, and seem to imply that if one is on that journey then they are making the kind of progress in their regular life that is the best we can do to fit into the "worthy" category (I'm using my own words here).

===========

Basically, my reaction in my previous post was to what I perceived to be the implication that the sacrament of confession was required every time before communion; inherent to that statement are a number of presuppositions, like a) confession makes us worthy for communion, which is false - we're never worthy, but God is always understanding; and b) communion is now dependent on another sacrament, when in fact all the other sacraments are dependent on communion, as it is the sacrament that defines the active boundaries of our church.  We probably don't disagree on any of these points, my friend, so pardon the unnecessary verbage.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 12:54:37 AM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Mo the Ethio
Proud Capitalist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
Posts: 453



« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2006, 02:41:44 AM »

I misunderstand nothing. I just believe that it is an incorrect teaching.

        ...from the confessions of His Eminence TomS ,Patriarch of all Protestant Baggage....
Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2006, 03:34:49 AM »

HOWEVER, this response/answer can also, I think, lead to nonsense or at least some incongruities. If when Jesus gave his disciples bread and wine at the Last Supper, the bread and wine were changed into his body and blood, it means that before he was crucified, Jesus was able to - and in fact did - give his body and blood via bread and wine to his disciples. I.e., he gave his body before he gave his body, and he gave his blood before he gave his blood. And if they became his body and blood, then what need was there for him to be crucified if he was able to give them his body and blood before his crucifixion?

There is only one sacrifice for ALL time (past, present and future), and that happened when the BODY of Jesus Christ was crucified in the 1st century.  ÃƒÆ’‚  
 
Your problem is that you have erroneously associated the sacrificial act itself with the consecrated bread and wine as if they were one and the same.ÂÂ  While it is true that the transformation of bread/wine and the crucifixion are related, they are actually two different events.ÂÂ  
 
To illustrate:
 

Point A  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Point B  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Point C  
---------------------------------------------------------------
bread and wine Creation ==>ÂÂ  ***************
bread and wine  2000 BC ==>  *  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ One  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ *
bread and wine  ÃƒÆ’‚  33 AD ==>  *  ÃƒÆ’‚  Body  &  *
bread and wine  ÃƒÆ’‚ 100 AD ==>  *  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Blood  ÃƒÆ’‚ * ==> Crucifixion
bread and wine  1500 AD ==>  *  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  of  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ *  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ (1st century)
bread and wine  2000 AD ==>  *  ÃƒÆ’‚  Christ  ÃƒÆ’‚ *
bread and wine Eternity ==>ÂÂ  ***************

 
As you can see, what actually happens whenever we celebrate the Divine Liturgy is that the consecrated bread and wine become part of the body of Jesus Christ (Point A to B) and that there is no repetition in the present time of the crucifixion (Point C).ÂÂ  Given the timelessness of the Body of Christ (Point B), it doesn't matter if the Last Supper was celebrated by Christ and the apostles before or after the crucifixion.
 
Quote
Also, there is no indication by Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul that Jesus called upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into his body and blood at the Last Supper. Why, then, if the Eucharist is the same thing that happened at the Last Supper, is the epiclêsis (the "calling upon" the Holy Spirit) necessary during the Eucharist to change the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, since Christ can give his disciples his body and blood just by giving them bread and wine - as he did at the Last Supper?

Wasn't the Holy Spirit active in Jesus Christ when he performed miracles?
 
Quote
This fact actually seems to support the Roman Catholic Church teaching that it's the words of institution by the priest (representing Jesus Christ), and not the coming/invocation of the Holy Spirit, that effect the transformation/change of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood.

Nicholas Cabasillas discusses this subject in his excellent book "A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy."ÂÂ  He is essentially saying that praying for the coming of the Holy Spirit during consecration is an act of humility on the part of the priest knowing that no man can perform miracles on his own.ÂÂ  It is, after all, the Holy Spirit who accomplishes the transformation; words alone uttered by men have no effect.
 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 03:38:37 AM by Theognosis » Logged
Carpatho Russian
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 285


Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory for ever!


« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2006, 08:14:00 AM »

when in fact all the other sacraments are dependent on communion, as it is the sacrament that defines the active boundaries of our church.
A concept that was gradually lost in the minds of the laity (and perhaps most clergy) with the separation of the Sacraments of Baptism/Chrismation and Marriage from their original placement within the public celebration of the Eucharist.  Even confession (the Sacrament of Forgiveness) receives its fulfillment in the Eucharist.  As the Words of Institution state, "Take, eat..., Drink....for the forgiveness of sins!"
Logged

Zastupnice christianov nepostydnaja, chodatajice ko Tvorcu nepreložnaja, ne prezri hr’išnych molenij hlasy, popredvari jako blahaja na pomošč nas, virno vopijuščich ti: Uskori na molitvu, i potščisja na umolenije, zastupajušči prisno Bohorodice, čtuščich t’a.
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2006, 12:03:17 PM »



Wasn't the Holy Spirit active in Jesus Christ when he performed miracles?
 ÃƒÆ’‚Â
Nicholas Cabasillas discusses this subject in his excellent book "A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy."ÂÂ  He is essentially saying that praying for the coming of the Holy Spirit during consecration is an act of humility on the part of the priest knowing that no man can perform miracles on his own.ÂÂ  It is, after all, the Holy Spirit who accomplishes the transformation; words alone uttered by men have no effect.
 


I used to think this was right on. I do not anymore. This sounds great and possibly that is why I used to like this concept. I have a problem accepting this now though.
Here is why: If this is the case then how does a priest preform the miracle of absolution?
It's his words after all. Now Jesus taught and gave his apostles the ability to preform this miracle. The words are being said by the Priest but the Priest represents (stands in place of) Jesus to celebrate this miracle for us. Jesus gave that authourity to his apostles. So, why say that the words of a man have no effect? That sounds as if you doubt that Jesus gave that authourity to them. I do not doubt it. It's their job he gave them. Surely when someone is doing their job in his name that he authourized to do it- surely we need not worry that they are not able to do it. That is my new way of looking at it.
Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2006, 08:58:56 PM »


I used to think this was right on. I do not anymore. This sounds great and possibly that is why I used to like this concept. I have a problem accepting this now though.
Here is why: If this is the case then how does a priest preform the miracle of absolution?
It's his words after all. Now Jesus taught and gave his apostles the ability to preform this miracle. The words are being said by the Priest but the Priest represents (stands in place of) Jesus to celebrate this miracle for us.

Do the Catholic Priests use a verse in the Bible to forgive sins just as they use the words "eat it..." (Mat 26:26) to consecrate the bread?ÂÂ  

Absolutely not.ÂÂ  

What they use is the following PRAYER to perform the miracle of absolution:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

If the Latins are really consistent about their belief that the words of the Lord are enough to accomplish the sacraments, then they should be using Luke 23:34 to absolve the sinner.

Luke 23:34ÂÂ  
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

But then again, this is not the case.ÂÂ  It is prayer that they use.ÂÂ  Hence, your argument contradicts the position of the Catholic Church.

Quote
Jesus gave that authourity to his apostles. So, why say that the words of a man have no effect? That sounds as if you doubt that Jesus gave that authourity to them. I do not doubt it. It's their job he gave them. Surely when someone is doing their job in his name that he authourized to do it- surely we need not worry that they are not able to do it. That is my new way of looking at it.

The authority is there; it's just a question of whether one needs prayer to perform the job with humility or not.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 09:19:43 PM by Theognosis » Logged
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2006, 11:19:17 PM »

Do the Catholic Priests use a verse in the Bible to forgive sins just as they use the words "eat it..." (Mat 26:26) to consecrate the bread?ÂÂ  

Absolutely not.ÂÂ  

What they use is the following PRAYER to perform the miracle of absolution:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

If the Latins are really consistent about their belief that the words of the Lord are enough to accomplish the sacraments, then they should be using Luke 23:34 to absolve the sinner.

Luke 23:34ÂÂ  
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

But then again, this is not the case.ÂÂ  It is prayer that they use.ÂÂ  Hence, your argument contradicts the position of the Catholic Church.

The authority is there; it's just a question of whether one needs prayer to perform the job with humility or not.


When did you go Sola Scriptura?
How ridiculous to say that a Bible verse needs to be there for it to be valid!!!!!
Logged
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2006, 11:20:29 PM »

What you are saying is the poor slobs that lived before the bible was printed are off base!!!
sounds a bit protestant for my taste.
Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2006, 01:13:16 AM »

When did you go Sola Scriptura?ÂÂ  How ridiculous to say that a Bible verse needs to be there for it to be valid!!!!!

Just as it is ridiculous to change the traditional form of the words of consecration in order to align it with Scripture.

http://www.wandea.org.pl/consecration.htm

The form of the Consecration in the traditional Mass has been fixed since Apostolic times. It has been 'canonically' fixed since the so-called Armenian Decree of the Council of Florence (1438-1445). According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the form (capitalized below) is found within these words in the Canon:

Who the day before He suffered took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and with His eyes lifted up to heaven, to You, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to You, He blessed, broke, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and eat you all of this

FOR THIS IS MY BODY

In like manner, after He had supped, taking also this glorious chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to You, He blessed and gave it to His disciples saying: Take and drink you all of this

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF THE FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of me.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent continues: 'of this form, no one can doubt.'

Taken from the People's Mass Book, and in accord with DOL 1360, the following is the 'form' for the NOM (In the People's Mass Book -- as in the 'Missalette' in common use in American churches -- no words are capitalized or italicized; they are run together so that the form of the sacrament can in no way be distinguished from the rest of the text which forms part of the Institution Narrative: however in Paul VI's Latin original, the words are italicized and in the paragraph below italicization is used.):

'Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: take and eat, all of you, this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, He took the cup. Again He gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to His disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. do this in memory of me.'

In introducing these new forms Paul VI called them 'the words of the Lord' (verba dominica) rather than 'the Words of Consecration' -- thus once again stressing the narrative nature of the rite. Having changed the very words of Our Lord, he further said that he 'wished them' to be 'as follows' (DOL 1360). How any one, even a 'pope' could 'wish' them to be other than they are is beyond conception. It would seem however that for the innovators, even the very words of Christ are neither sacrosanct nor inviolable. And so it is with exactitude that Paul VI described the changes introduced into the Eucharistic Prayers as 'singularly new,' as 'amazing and extraordinary' and as the 'greatest innovation' of all the innovations introduced. Indeed, with regard to the Words of Consecration instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, Paul VI used the Latin term 'mutation.' When such a 'mutation' is substantial -- that is, when it changes the meaning of the form, it renders it invalid. As we shall see, even if there is only doubt about whether or not a change is substantial, i.e. whether or not there is a change in meaning, the use of such a form is considered sacrilegious.

In changing the form the innovators argued that they were bringing it 'into line with Scripture.' Now there is absolutely no reason why this should have been done. Scripture is not a greater source of Revelation than Tradition --indeed, strictly speaking, it is part of Tradition. Imagine the hue and cry that would be raised if someone were to say that he wanted to change Scripture to bring it into line with Tradition! It is not from Scripture, but from Tradition that we receive the form used in confecting the Eucharist. Such indeed must be the case as the earliest Gospel was written some eight years after our Lord's death. Listen to the words of Cardinal Manning: 'We neither derive our religion from the Scriptures, nor does it depend upon them. Our faith was in the world before the New Testament was written.'


« Last Edit: August 12, 2006, 01:22:53 AM by Theognosis » Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2006, 01:20:19 AM »

What you are saying is the poor slobs that lived before the bible was printed are off base!!!
sounds a bit protestant for my taste.

Not exactly what I said.ÂÂ  The point is that Catholics use the words of the Lord (as preserved by Tradition regardless of whether it is oral or written) to consecrate the bread and wine, and for consistency, they should be using the words of the Lord as well in the miracle of absolution.ÂÂ  But the latter is not the case because the Latins use prayer in forgiving sins.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2006, 01:21:40 AM by Theognosis » Logged
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2006, 08:55:21 AM »

Not exactly what I said.ÂÂ  The point is that Catholics use the words of the Lord (as preserved by Tradition regardless of whether it is oral or written) to consecrate the bread and wine, and for consistency, they should be using the words of the Lord as well in the miracle of absolution.ÂÂ  But the latter is not the case because the Latins use prayer in forgiving sins.


I think I get it now. Undecided
Logged
Steve Dennehy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 135



« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2006, 07:33:17 PM »

At the Passover-Last-Supper, Our Lord Jesus Christ (God become man, God as man), by His words "This is My Body given up for you." changed bread into Himself and offered His Body to the power of evil; within an hour or so Judas Isacriot leaves to arrange his arrest.ÂÂ  By His words "This is My Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, shed for you and for all ,for the forgiveness of sins." He changed wine into Himself and offered His Blood; within an hour or so He is sheddingÂÂ  His Blood in the Garden of Gethsemane.
This is the beginning of His Sacrifice in atonement forfour evil (our hatred of Him and each other) which moves to His arrest, His condemnation for blasphemy for claiming to be God by the Sanhedrin, the Israeli religious authority,ÂÂ  his sentencing to crucifixion byÂÂ  Pontius Pilate, and His scourging and crucifixion by the Roman authorities.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2006, 07:46:47 PM by Steve Dennehy » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.163 seconds with 66 queries.