Posted on 11/30/2003 5:21:17 PM PST by drstevej
|
|
||
Bruce Nolan: How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God: Welcome to my world.
Fallen man wants noting to do with God.
Apply your vast intellectual powers. It is a very simple concept.
"Calvin's preference, then, for theatrum as a figure for the created realm, seems to rest upon his desire for a single metaphor that expresses the ordered beauty of God's self-revelation to man, but which at the same time rejects any theater in which man's own acts are glorified or in which false representations of Deity are depicted. By setting the theatrum Ecclesiae alongside the theatrum mundi, bracketing men and angels in both, Calvin is approaching metaphorically the question of how rational beings can be instruments of God's will, yet operate for their own part as well."
OP no wonder you had no serious issues with our icon veneration, from a conversation some time back.
Have any of you read or heard of the book listed in this post?
Have you read or heard of this stuff?
What is the difference between speaking infallible truth and being infallible? Are you assigning an implicit lifelong duration to the latter state?
It seems to me that speaking infallibly on a certain topic and being infallible on a certain topic are the same thing, unless you have hidden qualifiers.
Heck... correct me if I'm wrong, but the RC church doesn't invest complete infallibility in any man either, does it?
The God-Man Jesus Christ was infallible in all things.
Even the Pope, if he isn't speaking ex cathedra isn't infallible?
Correct, he has a limited infallibility in our theology, as do the Bishops. You recognize that you and I also have a limited infallibility when we speak or write things that are true as well. As also did even Calvin and Luther.
The question then becomes:
Did Christ bestow a limited and certain infallibility on the Church and/or certain members thereof in matters of Faith?
I would have to say yes, based on the passages of Scripture quoted previously. Again, could Jesus' prayer for St. Peter to have unfailing faith to confirm his brethren not come to pass? Obviously not. Jesus is God and does whatsoever He wills, and whatsoever He wills comes to pass. St. Peter's faith never failed after his conversion.
And the question follows from that:
Did this limited infallibility survive St. Peter and the other Apostles falling asleep in the Lord?
The negative answer to this begs the question of why bother to give it only to the first generation, and not the subsequent 100? Where they alone worthy of certainty in Faith, whereas the will of God for us is confusion, uncertainty and resulting indifference? The positive answer begs the question of the multiplicity of conflicting doctrines. They can't all be right. The only possibilities are one or none being right.
So is not faith infallible? Or rather if faith is not infallible, but is an admixture of truth and error, is it not impossible that its object is God Christ, Truth Himself? Can error have as its object Jesus Christ?
Let us grant then that faith is infallible. If faith is infallible, should there not be an easy way for anyone to infallibly know it and express it?
What conditions did Christ and the Apostles place on this?
Did they not insist on unity, communion, tradition, morality, and obedience to spiritual and political authority? Does this not require us to not merely fish our faith out of the Bible, but to draw an unbroken chain down from every generation since Christ and to be one with both our predecessors and brothers? Does it not rule out theories of the Church falling into error? Where was Christ and the Holy Ghost at the "fall of the Church"? On Holiday?
If the Church cannot fall, then it not only is still standing but has always been standing and recognizable.
Where then, was the preaching of Calvin and his non-episcopal Church prior to Calvin? Why can it not be found among the disparate Christians who survive to this day very far from the Roman Empire and her power, such as Ethiopia and India and Persia? If, let us assume, the local churches within the Roman Empire fell into errors due to pressure from a formerly pagan government structure, which the Reformation was at last able to purge, how did the churches outside Rome ALL fall into the same supposed errors?
Everywhere you look is sacramental monarchial episcopal government, the centrality of the Mass and Real Presence, and liturgical veneration of Mary.
Lets grant that Waldensians and Wycliffites were proto-Calvinists. Yet back in the time of late Rome, men like Augustine, Leo, and Gregory are clearly Catholics (living in a Catholic Empire under a Catholic Emperor who had outlawed all other religions) with the distinctive features of the Mass, prayers for the dead, the Papal Primacy, intercession of saints, and many other things no Calvinist would ever dream of adhering too.
Where is the unbreakable chain? If truth is one descending from Christ where is the continuous witness? Where is infallible faith where error abounds?
What problems? Do they still exist in Catholicism? I always dislike these sort of statements that assert without discussing.
That's a correct way of describing my point of view. I don't have an objection to Icons per se as instruments of education and memorial (one could argue that even Protestants us "icons" of a sort in our "flannelboard and cut-outs" Vacation Bible School bible stories), its the "veneration" and "prayers to" Icons and departed Saints with which I strongly disagree (or "prayers through", however you want to put it; I realize that Orthodox do not "pray to" the Icon itself).
Have any of you read or heard of the book listed in this post?
No, I'm not at all familiar with the book. Mea culpa. :-(
best, OP
Actually Hermann the Orthodox fall somewhere in between you/the RC and the Calvinists. I believe.
We reject your idea of transubstantiation. In the Orthodox church, the bread and wine still are bread and wine when we accept them. The Holy Spirit transforms the gifts but they remain the same in their created nature. Which I think is not what you believe in the RC church..
You see the issue is the melding of Uncreated and created. In our eucharist, the created and Uncreated coexist, they become one. The created becomes the means by which the Uncreated is revealed.
This important issue, for us, is directly related to the Incarnation. The divine nature of Christ did not make His human nature non-human. Both coexisted in the person of Christ. Likewise the presence of Christ in the bread and wine does not keep it from remaining bread and wine.
It is also in the union of the Uncreated with created, that we express our belief in the natural congruency - without comingling - of God and created man.(maybe what we call synergy)
Transubstantiation is a problem for us because it claims that the bread and wine change their created natures. There is no real *union* between the Created and uncreated within the concept of transubstantiation, and that union is a core doctrine of the Orthodox church. In our view, transubstantiation is a practical denial of the Incarnation. Because it promotes the changing of the created to Uncreated instead of the union.
In the Eucharist, we are joined to Christ by body and blood, we become one with His humanity so that through Him we might encounter divinity. This would not be possible if the bread and wine somehow ceased being a created thing.
And here you see the brilliance within the Orthodox church, I think. :-)
It is, as they say, the whole tomato!
Just as Christ, partly man and created, came to reveal to us the Uncreated God, being partly divine. Of course.
That's a good question, Hermann.
Discussions like the above are one of the reasons I've commented on some sacramental similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism... the Eastern Orthodox doctrine just seems (to me, at least) more similar to the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation ("The substance of Christ's Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine" -- "Consubstantiation", Catholic Encyclopedia). The Eastern Orthodox would not use the Lutheran terminology, nor would the Lutherans use Eastern Orthodox terminology; but to me it seems as though there are pronounced similarities.
And of course, Martin Luther and the Patriarch of Constantinople maintained a vigorous and friendly correspondence for some time exploring the possibilities of a rapprochement between Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism, although nothing of the sort iltimately came to fruition.
On the other hand, as far as comparisons go, the Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox are probably more similar still -- both Anglicans and Lutherans are consubstantiationist; but the Anglican clergy is structured in an episcopal manner similar to that of Eastern Orthodoxy, established in distinctive National Churches similar to Eastern Orthodoxy, organized around a "primacy of honor" accorded to the Archbishop of Canterbury similar to Eastern Orthodoxy (cf., the Patriarch of Constantinople), employ Icons for contemplation (as do Lutherans) similarly to Eastern Orthodoxy, and tend towards a "soft" view of Predestination (though not so soft as the Eastern Orthodox view, there being a very old and venerable Calvinist tradition within some varieties of Anglicanism).
It's a somewhat blurry line for me, and I think a lot of it comes down to word choice.
Go figure. ;-)
best, OP
That's called Lutheranism - consubstantiation.
Transubstantiation is a problem for us because it claims that the bread and wine change their created natures. There is no real *union* between the Created and uncreated within the concept of transubstantiation, and that union is a core doctrine of the Orthodox church. In our view, transubstantiation is a practical denial of the Incarnation. Because it promotes the changing of the created to Uncreated instead of the union. In the Eucharist, we are joined to Christ by body and blood, we become one with His humanity so that through Him we might encounter divinity. This would not be possible if the bread and wine somehow ceased being a created thing.
Apparently you don't understand Transubstantiation either. Lets have a lesson.
Transubstantiation means that when the Bread and Wine are consecrated, they are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Because Christ is not sacrificed again in the Mass, the blood, soul and divinity are in the consecrated bread by concommittance and joined to the body made present by the power of the Sacrament, while in the consecrated wine, the body, soul, and divinity are there by concomittance and joined to the blood made present by the power of the sacrament.
So the substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ's body, and the substance of wine is changed into the substance of Christ's blood.
THERE IS NO CHANGE OF A CREATURE INTO THE CREATOR!
Rather, the Creator, the Divine Word, is present by concomittance, since after the Resurrection, His divinity is permanently joined to His human soul, which permenantly animates His august and sacred body in which permanently flows His precious blood. So to make His body present in the Host requires that the whole Christ become present in it. Otherwise, Christ would be slaughtered anew in each Mass, since over here in the Host we'd have body, and over there in the Chalice would be blood, and up in Heaven would be soul and divinity.
Now, to the question is what you are saying the Orthodox Faith? That the bread and wine remain after the consecration? That the term "transubstantiation" is rejected by the Orthodox?
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America proposes the "Confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem" made in AD 1672 as a basic source of the teachings of the Orthodox faith:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7064.asp
Decree XVII of that document concerns the Eucharist and reads:
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night wherein He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat ye; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink ye all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin {Mary}, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.
Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and entereth into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.
Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also saith: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.
Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descendeth upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth.
Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honoured in the highest manner, and adored with latria. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.
Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different therefrom; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.
Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above. Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who hath received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox, and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics; but necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress the Catholic Church of Christ rejecteth and anathematiseth.
Not wishing to pass judgement on your spiritual teachers or your own beliefs, I will however note that the doctrine you state that "In the Orthodox church, the bread and wine still are bread and wine when we accept them" is condemned as the ignorant and wretched impiety of Luther by the Orhtodox Church, while the doctrine of transubstantiation and the use of that word is very strongly upheld as most Orthodox and correct, though a mystery, by the Orthodox Church.
The questions I have is (1) do you adhere to and accept this confession of faith as Orthodox? (2) does your previous statement stem from a misconception of the concept of transubstantiation or its rejection as explained here? (3) do you still really think "Catholics" and "Orthodox" have a radically differing set of faiths as you previously explained?
That an Eastern Orthodox confession endorses "transubstantiation" by name is new to me; I honestly hadn't heard of such a thing before (yet I am sure that your translation is correct).
However, in Marmema's defense, she's apparently not the only Eastern Orthodox who has reservations about the word "transubstantiation". Although I've read a lot of Eastern Orthodox theology, my only personal experience with Eastern Orthodox congregants has been in the Oklahoma City area (as it happens, the youth pastor who introduced me to Calvinism ultimately converted to an Eastern Orthodox church in OKC).
With that in mind, I note that Father John Maxwell of Saint Gabriel Orthodox in OKC has expressed sentiments very similar to Marmema's:
The root of your question is not so uncommon for the Western person. I ask your patience with my answer. But I feel that your question is a serious one and needs a serious answer. Since the time of Scholastics, the Western Church using Aristotelian logic, which stated that a thing can only be in one place at one time, did the false premise which divides reality and symbol come into existence. This is what started the debates concerning the eucharist, either it is symbol (stands in place of the reality) or it is real. Thus the controversy of Berangarius of Tours and the Scholastic answer of "Transubstantiation."
The original meaning of the word in Greek for symbol (symbolo) was "The throwing together of two realities." As symbol properly understood does not merely stand for something, it unites us to something else. Thus the eucharist for example joins together two realities, the bread and the wine and the body and blood of Christ. This union is an essential union without confusion, and without separation or division. To be more precise in the words of St. John of Damascus, "The bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be bread and wine, just as He became man without ceasing to be God." (quotation is by memory, so it might not be precise).
The Church as the Body of Christ is essentially united to Christ and yet its members do not lose their distinction. It is interesting to note that these terms for both the Church and the Eucharist are the same. And this is not a mistake or mere coincidence. In a similar, but perhaps distinct manner the Divine Liturgy, Liturgical Acts, The Bishop, the Priest, the Deacons, the Servers, the Choir, the people of God, the icons, etc. also become a meeting point between Heaven and Earth, between Christ and us.
There is then no duality or radical separation between real and symbol in these cases. The symbolic become a visible manifestation of its prototype. Fr. Alexander Schmemann spoke of symbols this way, "For it is the very nature of the symbol that it reveals and communicates the 'other' as precisely the 'other', the visibility of the invisible, the knowledge as unknowable, the presence of the future as future. The symbol is the means of knowledge which cannot be known otherwise, for knowledge here depends on participation - the living encounter with the entrance into the 'epiphany' of reality which the symbol is." (For the life of the world, p. 141).
We should clarify at this point that although we hold that the symbol is united with its prototype we do not confuse or equate the two. (I hope this is now getting at the heart of your question). If an icon for instance, which is Holy, becomes damaged, it can reverently be burned for it is not the object (or better put the subject) of worship. In the same way the priest although he may manifest Christ to us in many ways is not Christ. The Divine Liturgy although it is heavenly worship and gives us a foretaste of what is to come, transporting us and connecting us to heaven is not heaven.
I hope you found this helpful. Please feel free to continue the dialogue. I am sure there are many others that could have expressed this far better than this simple priest.
Yours in Christ, Father John
I should note, however, that I am unable to find the "John of Damascus" quotation which the priest is referencing; on the other hand, I don't have a full library of John Damascene, and priest Maxwell probably does.
To the extent, then, that the Eastern Orthodox may be generally closer to "transubstantiation" than I had thought -- I plead ignorance on the grounds that the Eastern Orthodox in the Oklahoma area (one of my old stomping grounds) are apparently less fond of the term "transubstantiation" than the Confession which you posted above.
We don't use the consubstantiation idea, though. It's more than that. And anyway there are some Lutheran pastors posting on an Orthodox list I joined who say they don't use that idea either, that they believe in a more "real presence" thing.
Not feeling too wordy this morning, so here is a better explanation for you than your one Patriarch. There was also a Patriarch who was *very* Calvinistic, as OP will tell you if he wishes. OP really likes him, I think, just as you like this one who says what you want to hear. But neither is really the mind of the church.
holy mysteries
And what you will find on this page above is yet again the idea I was trying to explain in my original post on this. That created reveals Uncreated -
"...the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).
I did look on the goarch site and found the very same ideas, btw. If you want the link let me know.
One thing about using those sites where they come up with a writing here or there to show "unity" between our churches is that they tend to focus on one man or writing. We operate not on authority but on consensus.
yes thank you so much OP! That is what I was trying to say above as well.
To be more precise in the words of St. John of Damascus, "The bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be bread and wine, just as He became man without ceasing to be God."
Again, what I was trying to say when I said created reveals Uncreated. Only your source says it so very much better than my poor attempt. Thanks so much!!
Fr. Alexander Schmemann spoke of symbols this way, "For it is the very nature of the symbol that it reveals and communicates the 'other' as precisely the 'other', the visibility of the invisible, the knowledge as unknowable, the presence of the future as future. The symbol is the means of knowledge which cannot be known otherwise, for knowledge here depends on participation - the living encounter with the entrance into the 'epiphany' of reality which the symbol is." (For the life of the world, p. 141).
Again, as I keep saying, the idea of created revealing Uncreated is expressed here. It really is the whole tomato.
This is a very good book which I have been re-reading currently from time to time. It is even now at my bedside, in fact.
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.