Posted on 02/16/2015 12:58:16 PM PST by NRx
Although this work is historical in its method and content, it is not a product of historical curiosity. At a time when church unity occupies an increasingly central place in theological study, the contribution of our theology is required not simply as an academic demand, but also a fundamental debt owed to the Church.
In order to fulfil the demand and pay the debt, our theology can no longer fall back on the sources of its own confessional riches. The gradual abandonment of the confessional mentality of past generations and the recognition of the need for our theology to be an expression not of one confession but of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Herself, now directs the course of theological study towards the sources of the ancient undivided Church. A Church which, in spite of all the disputes and conflicts by which She was often shaken, was always well aware of what is meant by the catholic consciousness of the Church. This holds true, most especially for the study of the unity of the Church which aims to provide our divided Christian world with that supra-confessional thread which will help it to rediscover and actualize its unity through the midst of its various divisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at oodegr.co ...
This is a rather long and serious work by one of the foremost living theologians in the world. Follow the link to read it all.
This is actually a BOOK by Met. Iakovos (John) Zizioulas.
It might be worth dipping into during Great Lent.
Work - book You say tomato I say tomato. Well spelling doesn’t actually help here. But you get my point. ;-)
Thanks - I really liked the part about the Church starting - not on Pentecost - but at the institution of the Eucharist. That not only puts Jesus at the center, but is backed up by what he said: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” This is the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and discussed at length in Hebrews. This is the true beginning of the New Covenant.
I also like separating the Eucharist (along with Baptism, in my opinion) from the other five sacraments. Some are essential, others are available.
Thanks again.
Books take more digestion than essays, and are usually read over time (e.g. Great Lent). That’s the difference!
Thanks for this post and recommendation for lenten reading.
“Transmission of the priesthood, or the consolidation and continuation of the Church outside the Eucharist, was and has remained inconceivable.
This is profound; with no bishop or Eucharist, the Church does not even exist.
And with no separate class of clergy distinctively tilted “hiereus” (priests), whose primary and unique function was to offer transubstantiated human flesh and blood as sacrificial atonement, to be consumed to obtain spiritual life, then you do not have the NT church, in distinction to a Roman paganized one. But within which some actual Christians exists, and are part of the larger body of Christ which only consists of true believers.
Kind of negates this piece as unifying.
For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, notthe means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist.
Sometimes people argue, “But Father, I believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches.” If this is indeed the case, then the question is not one of Eucharistic hospitality but, rather, “Then if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven’t you become an Orthodox Christian?”
http://oca.org/questions/divineliturgy/receiving-communion
But like as Rome can defines “unanimous consent” of the fathers to mean non-unanimous, and "unbroken succession" to vacancies of years, along with competing popes and confusion over which were valid, then Caths can define RCs and EOs being in "unity" despite significant disagreements.
That source also states,
While one might argue that any number of situations constitute a “good reason or cause,” the critical point is that without the mutual agreement of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops, offering Communion to an Orthodox Christian would not be allowed. I know of no situations where local Roman Catholic and Orthodox ordinaries have made such an agreement.
Further, Orthodox Christianity does not permit its faithful to receive Holy Communion in non-Orthodox communities, whether they be Roman Catholic, Protestant, or whatever. Hence, while Roman Catholicism may extend Eucharistic hospitality to Orthodox Christians, it does not mean that Orthodox Christians are permitted to accept such hospitality.
And in further confirmation, Saint Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church states,
The Orthodox Christian Church, also called the “Eastern Orthodox,” “Greek Orthodox” Church, or simply “the Orthodox Church...”
Can Roman Catholics receive communion at an Orthodox church?
Yes, but like anyone else, they must first go through the process of joining the Orthodox Church, which involves setting aside former church memberships. Non-Orthodox Christians of any sort may not receive communion at an Orthodox church without doing this. There are no “walk-ins” for communion.
At the same time, Orthodox Christians are also not permitted to commune anywhere but in an Orthodox church, and they also have to be prepared by prayer, fasting and a recent confession. (http://saintpaulemmaus.org/for-visitors/for-roman-catholics/
In addition, and besides other disagreements , while Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854 imaginatively decreed,
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart. - Ineffabilis Deus,
the same Orthodox source states,
Why don’t Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception?
Mary (like all of us) was born mortal as a result of the Fall. But for Roman Catholics, a special conception for Mary was necessary so that Christ could be born to a spotless vessel—she was therefore declared in 1854 to have been conceived without “the stain of original sin.” So the Immaculate Conception is a natural consequence of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin in the West, but is not needed in Orthodoxy to explain how mortal Mary could have given birth to a perfect Son. For the Orthodox, Christ’s perfection in His humanity is the result of its union with His divinity, not a result of having been born of an immaculately conceived mother.
At the same time, while both Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe in the Virgin Mary’s great holiness (perhaps even to the point of sinlessness), for Roman Catholics, this holiness is the result of the Immaculate Conception; that is, she could not have sinned. But for Orthodox Christians, her holiness is the result of struggle against the passions that beset all human beings after the Fall. It is far more laudable to be holy when one doesn’t have to be.
But both are guilty of most of the same errors perpetuated by accretions from oral tradition, versus Scripture.
I'd like to hear more about the ESSENTIAL part.
“I’ve reserved 7,000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
Jesus himself submitted to Baptism, and He also instituted Communion. These I consider essential in the life of a Christian. This is not to downplay the importance of the other sacraments, but they are not essential (i.e., one does not have to enter into marriage, but this does not diminish the power of this and the other sacraments).
This is all I meant - not trying to stir up a problem for anyone.
Thanks,
Why?
What does BAPTISM do for the believer?
No; He did not.
He was eating the Passover; just like He'd done EVERY year of His life on Earth.
What He DID do was to make some comments about what the food; the Jews had been COMMANDED to eat long ago; represented.
I understand; but the 'problem' is going to remain; whether you or me stir the pot or not. ;^)
Thank you for posting this. I urge all who wish to read the linked work to post thoughts and observations and specific passages that you like and / or want to question or comment. Let’s see if we can have an open thread that stays off rabbit trails, pig paths and goes over the same old same old over and over and over. And over.
IGNORE THE TROLLS. Do not reply. Ignore them.
Good Luck!
May I suggest actually READING the work? It might spare the rest of us from further inane commentary.
ping
May i suggest actually considering who i was responding to, and the NT itself, which ought to spare the rest of us from further inane commentaries disparaging exposing that which did not exist in the NT church.
While my comment was directed at Roman Catholicism, and which the poster is, the utter absence of even one NT pastor titled “hiereus,” and of any whose manifest primary and unique function was to dispense flesh and blood, applies to the EOs as well.
The church began after the death of Christ, as otherwise you have a church without a New covenant and the pouring out of gifts, and was simply an "assembly" (also used of secular ones: Acts 19:32, 39, 41of NT believers), and which was to come together to eat the Lord's supper.
But which was a commemoration of the Lord's death in which the church is to effectually remember how the Lord's body was broken and His sinless blood poured out for them as a body. (Acts 20:28) And thus as a body they declared/proclaimed His death for them by sharing food during that actual communal meal, the "feast of charity," manifesting that each member was part of that body for whom Christ died.
And thus by going ahead and eating while others had none, shaming them that had not and were hungry, then the apostle said they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but their own. Therefore they were not to come to fill their belly, but to effectually recognize each other as being part of that body for whom Christ died, which is the body was the focus here, and in the next chapters.
And the figurative view is the only one that is consistent with with the rest of Scripture, as recently once again shown briefly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.