Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Montalban]

I think you totally you misunderstand my post. Let the beamishboy be crystal clear.

1. Jesus has throughout His ministry made strong metaphorical allusions to himself and his relationship with us. For example, he has said that we must be in him and he in us. We must drink the water of everlasting life (note: it's water and not wine). He told the woman at the well that those who drank not the water had no part of him. Again, it was water so this time, nobody jumps on the sacrament. He then changes from the water he offers to the woman by saying that HE was that water of everlasting spring. Again, water is used, not wine. He says we must drink this water, ie Him. In this instance, I believe most of you will agree that the meaning is simply that we must appropriate Him wholly into us. A graphic way of saying we must assimilate him and all his teachings into us. Drink that living water, so to speak.

And I showed you where he was questions if he was talking literally and he said he was

I didn't miss your point at all. You missed mine. I demonstrated from the text, and from Paul, and the ECFs and you simply repeat your original statement.

It's based so far on you drawing a parallel – that if Jesus speaks figuratively here, he must do there. There's no proof from you that there is such a parallel, other than you saying that it is so.

To this you attempted the ridiculous addition of a 'citation' which I've also dealt with.

You make a false claim that there's no incidence of the body sacrifice and another part of the Bible.

Not only is this not enough – because there's no other Jesus dying on the cross incident either, I showed you where there was bodily sacrifice.

You simply ignore all of that.

Go on, repeat your initial beliefs again! If you say it often enough you might even get someone to backslap you over it.

 

[beamishboy]

A TRUCE!!!

Howdy folksies!!!!

The beamishboy is now offering a truce to all non-Protestants. My apologies to all whom I've offended and my forgiveness to all who say nasty things of the beamishboy even if they don't seek forgiveness and continue to say it.

I picked my vicar's brain and he says this is the most unfruitful exercise imaginable. After such a debate, one is bound to be a more hardened whatever-one-was-before. This will make an RC a more militant and hardened RC, an Orthodox a more militant and hardened Orthodox and a Protestant a more militant and hardened Protestant. Phew! I wrote the same thing for everyone in case some people think I say less of Protestants! Hehe.

I have seen Secundulous bravely and most ably arguing against Muslims in another thread and it is silly for me to argue with him over whether the host is truly Jesus' body here.

My vicar says no adult likes to be told he is wrong by a prepubescent teenager and everything I say is immediately viewed as arrogance. Plus there is a clash of cultures because when the beamishboy talks of himself in the third person and brings in his castle and horse, people get riled even though all my friends do this.

And no, I didn't twist the words of Leon Morris. In fact I gave the title of the book in an earlier post. The page number appeared in the post Montalban replies to and says I twisted the words. The title of the book is The New International Commentary on the New Testament. This is a series under the General Editor, FF Bruce. Each book of the Bible is in one large voluminous commentary. Mine was of course "John". I paraphrased his book because he uses too many words but my paraphrase does not compromise his words. You can check for yourself.

I just thought to myself how embarrassing it'd be if the Muslims that we debate against in the Muslim threads were to enter GT to see our in-fighting. Plus since I agree with my vicar that this is a most unfruitful exercise, let's spend our time on better things.

The beamishboy leaps onto his snow-white steed, waves adieu and trots to his Castle of Truth. The beamishboy invites all to his castle (PM me for my e-mail address so you can ask for the key to bring down the drawbridge). Strangely, so far, the beamishboy's guests are only old men. Youngsters and women seem to stay away from my Castle of Truth. Perhaps they fear my shark-infested moat but have no fear, as long as you don't step into the moat, it's all right.

 

[Montalban]

Well, according to the Bible there was supposed to be 2 sacrifices. Jesus and probably those who delievered Him up to be "sacrificed". I view this as fulfilled in revelation and I doubt bm will agree with me on that. Not sure though.

Ezekiel 39:17 " And thou son of 'adam, thus He says my Lord YHWH, say to bird of every of wing, and to all of animal of the field
"Be convened ye from round-about on My Sacrifice which I am sacrificing for ye, a Sacrifice great on mountains of Israel, and ye eat flesh and drink blood. [Zeph 1/Reve 19]

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper/deipnon <1173> of the Great God. 18 That Ye may be eating fleshes of kings......[Zeph 1:17/Ezekiel 39:19]

I'm glad you posted this, not because you agree with me, but because you've offered some original thought on it, with examples I had not covered.

You are correct. It is spurious an argument to say "There's no other example of this", anyway, but here you correctly point out that Beamishboy's source is flawed - there are other examples

 

[Thekla]

blessed as makarios:

Matthew: 5:3, 5:4, 5:5, 5:6, 5:7, 5:8, 5:9,5:10, 5:11, 11:16, 13:16,16:17, 24:46
Mark: does not occur
Luke: 1:45, 6:20, 6:21, 6:22, 7:23, 10:23, 11:27, 11:28, 12:37, 12:38, 12:43, 14:14, 14:15, 23:29
John: 13:17, 20:29

Hebrew "equivalent":

Yowzabad (as name)

literally, "whom Jehovah gave"

 

[Montalban]

My vicar says no adult likes to be told he is wrong by a prepubescent teenager and everything I say is immediately viewed as arrogance.

Wow. You just can't help being arrogant - even there! No one cares that at teenager is telling an adult he is wrong. What we care about is you, regardless of your age see fit to interpret the Bible your own unique way... based as it is on your opinion, based on your opinion.

Your 'proofs' consist of a book from a person in a church that disagrees with you, that quotes ECFs you disagree with.

And you mis-use the case of a Greek word.

Arrogance abounds. You are in effect saying your opinion is more correct than other people

 

[Montalban]

blessed as makarios:

Matthew: 5:3, 5:4, 5:5, 5:6, 5:7, 5:8, 5:9,5:10, 5:11, 11:16, 13:16,16:17, 24:46
Mark: does not occur
Luke: 1:45, 6:20, 6:21, 6:22, 7:23, 10:23, 11:27, 11:28, 12:37, 12:38, 12:43, 14:14, 14:15, 23:29
John: 13:17, 20:29

Hebrew "equivalent":

Yowzabad (as name)

literally, "whom Jehovah gave"

I think, if you get any response at all, it will simply be him repeating his opinion.

There's no hope for youth if there is so much arrogance that they can not listen.

 

[beamishboy]

Wow. You just can't help being arrogant - even there! No one cares that at teenager is telling an adult he is wrong. What we care about is you, regardless of your age see fit to interpret the Bible your own unique way... based as it is on your opinion, based on your opinion.

Your 'proofs' consist of a book from a person in a church that disagrees with you, that quotes ECFs you disagree with.

And you mis-use the case of a Greek word.

Arrogance abounds. You are in effect saying your opinion is more correct than other people

Sigh!!! If even that is arrogance to you, I don't quite know how else to put it. To me, my theology is very much firmly established in God's Word and I can quite ably continue with the argument but to what purpose? Nobody will change his stand. Does one argue just to please his ego then, if it doesn't affect anyone apart from making them hopping mad like my arguments have made you? I'm not saying whose arguments are superior but there's no denying you go hopping mad at everything I say.

 

[Philothei]

Youngsters and women seem to stay away from my Castle of Truth. Perhaps they fear my shark-infested moat but have no fear, as long as you don't step into the moat, it's all right.

I have no fear ...What are you talking about BB? The only reason I do not post anymore is solemely on the fact you ignore all other posts either from male of females... You seem to be on a high horse declaring your own opinion as valid rejecting and disregarding everyone's comments... Why bother? You think too highly of yourself to believe that others hold their breaths when they read your ....englightened posts and comments... If you are ever for a serious conversation and bring about some evidence of what you claim and also ANSWER some of the their questions.....maybe this thread will turn around and people would truly be interested of what you are trying to say. Since then ... face the reality and stop "patting your self in the back" you are not a bit convencing...

 

[Montalban]

Sigh!!! If even that is arrogance to you, I don't quite know how else to put it. To me, my theology is very much firmly established in God's Word and I can quite ably continue with the argument but to what purpose?

I agree. What's the point in you endlessly repeating your opinion. Where not even attempts (twice) to offer evidence help you.

Nobody will change his stand. Does one argue just to please his ego then, if it doesn't affect anyone apart from making them hopping mad like my arguments have made you? I'm not saying whose arguments are superior but there's no denying you go hopping mad at everything I say.
[/SIZE]

If I seem hopping mad it's due to the frustration of you endlessly parading your opinion as fact.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You write:

The "we" consists of Christians who read the Bible without a preconceived set of practice/doctrines.

- except the preconception that your own sinful nature fits you to understand it by the use of your own intellect; a pretty big preconception.

Let me explain to you a little about what "Tradition" actually is.

The fact that most of us cannot really put a finger to what Tradition actually is (and I say neither can Orthodox and RCs) is because that's basically what Tradition is - hazy and ambiguous. [post 1075]

These sort of comments and their tone prompts thoughts that you show traits which might be described as arrogance.. You do not know how the Orthodox define it, indeed, you can't do so yourself, yet you offer us a definition of your own which, because it is 'hazy' you then choose to take as a sign that 'Tradition' is ill-defined.



Any vagueness arises from your own slim knowledge base. Do look at your posts, you constantly do this - that is offering a definition of something you disagree with which is not consonant with what those on the other side of the discussion actually hold.

The Orthodox definition is far from vague. Let me save ourselves a little time by repeating here something I posted to MamaZ.

The Greek word for tradition is paradosis, which is literally something that is handed on from one person to another. In Galatians 1:1, St. Paul explains where it comes from. It is 'not according to man', it comes, like St. Paul's teaching, from God.

A common Protestant misconception is that it is a series of teachings, it isn't; it is the living out of those teachings, which are the revelation of God.

The Orthodox Church holds four main sources of Christian tradition:
- the Holy Scriptures themselves, which did not fall from the skies at Pentecost, but were written within the tradition carried on from Christ Himself, who were inspired by God, and which were collected and canonised by the Church he founded.
- the Liturgy, which is the 'common work' of the people. In this public witness you may see what the Church believes: what we believe is what we pray. Our liturgies date from the early Church itself.
- the Councils. Many of these have met down the centuries, some are recognised as Ecumenical, some local. The Nicene Creed, produced at the first Ecumenical Council is recognised as the common expression of our Christian Faith.
- the Saints and the Fathers, whose lives and teachings offer edification.

These sources of tradition hold together as a unity, and we do not use one in isolation from the other. Every heretic who ever existed claimed to find support for his heresy in the Holy Scriptures. Taking one element in isolation is to end up with an unbalanced view.

Tradition? Is the person suggesting that Tradition actually gave a list of the 27 books? That cannot be because we know that there were other canons before that were different.

Yes, Tradition does give us the 27 book canon of the NT, and yes, there were other books before, as my earlier posts made clear. Indeed, without the Fathers and the Councils we should have had no decision on 27 books.

Does Tradition give the criteria for the choosing of the Canon and if so, what are these criteria.

Apostolicity - were they associated with an Apostolic Church/tradition? Were they thought to be Apostolic by the Fathers?
Orthodoxy - were the ideas consonant with those declared Orthodox by the elders/bishops of the various Churches, or were they tinged with Gnostic and other heretical notions?
Catholicity - were the books accepted as Apostolic and Orthodox by all the Churches with whom one's own Church was in communion?

In all these areas the works of the ECFs was considered most helpful in discerning the guidance of the Holy Spirit; that is why their writings matter.

I believe the Canon is rightly chosen because of a set of correct criteria but these criteria are not a part of "tradition" and I'll explain why. The earlier canons were not so accurate and it can't be that Tradition became clearer as time goes by. That is too ridiculous a suggestion to make.

You perform here, the little trick I mention above. Your own want of understanding suggests a ridiculous conclusion which you then call ridiculous. The criteria I set out above are still a crucial part of Holy Tradition; Tradition is dynamic and Spirit-inspired. There is no reason whatsoever why Tradition cannot become more focused as time goes on. You offer a duff definition of 'Tradition', you offer a duff definition of its nature, and, having set up a straw man, proceed to burn it. This is one reason people get frustrated with you; you misunderstand what is being written, put forward your own view as definitive, and then call their view 'ridiculous'. That word is more properly used to describe pontificating from a narrow basis of knowledge.

These criteria did not come from the Apostles. I don't think anyone is silly enough to suggest that St Paul or St John whispered to someone else giving him a secret list of 27 books for the NT and that got passed on. Neither is it plausible to say that the criteria for selection into the canon came from the apostles because we know they tightened the criteria which excluded Shepherd of Hermas (criterion of antiquity and proximity to an apostle).

A third example of the same technique. No one has suggested this, yet you waste a whole paragraph constructing an argument no one has advanced as though it is in some way pertinent to our discussion. Since it would be tedious to cite the other examples of this technique, I will let these three stand.

So whenever someone says the reason for something is Tradition, you must ask what tradition it is and who gave it.

This has been done. If you had read the book, The Books the Church Suppressed by Canon Michael Green, which I recommended to you some time ago, you would have a better understanding of your own tradition. He is an excellent Anglican theological writer whom I often turn to for readable expositions of cutting-edge scholarship. Do read his books, you'd like them - he's your sort of Anglican - but with no hang up about other Churches.

I shall stop here, hoping that you will gain some insight into both what the Orthodox mean by Holy Tradition, and to at least one of the reasons your posts provoke frustration in some.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[prodromos]

My vicar says no adult likes to be told he is wrong by a prepubescent teenager and everything I say is immediately viewed as arrogance. Plus there is a clash of cultures because when the beamishboy talks of himself in the third person and brings in his castle and horse, people get riled even though all my friends do this.

Please do tell us, when you speak with your vicar do you speak of yourself in the third person complete with horses and castles?

John

 

[Anglian]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Beamishboy has rightly reminded us of the witness we bear here. In the heat of discussion it is easy to let slip some comment which may be within the rules, but which is incompatible with Christian love. I am certainly guilty of this, and would like to offer any who have been offended by anything I have said, an apology.

What I would then like to do is to take this discussion back to where Montalban and Beamishboy were discussing the Eucharist. Here the ECFs can throw light that helps us.

The view advanced by Montalban was based upon the Scriptures he cited, but also upon the Holy Tradition of the Church; Beamishboy's view is one that also has a tradition, the reformed one which originates from the fifteenth century. So we might agree up front that both views have been advanced by pious and learned Christians, and even if Beamishboy's tradition might be of recent origin, it would be going too far to say that no one had advanced it before the reformers.

Let me also say up front that what follows is from my own Orthodox Tradition, so what is being expounded has nothing to do with Transubstantiation or developments of the common heritage which took place outside of the Orthodox understanding. I say nothing here about the Catholic understanding, simply that nothing that follows should be taken to involve Transubstantiation.

Montalban offered the relevant Scripture, so I shall not repeat them; the ECFs took those verses to mean that what happened in the Eucharist was real, not symbolic. Let us take the earliest Catechesis we have, that by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In what he writes he says nothing novel but teaches what he and those before him had been taught.
In Lecture XXII he writes:
'Since then, He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer?'
he says the same about This is My Blood, and goes on to say in chapter 3:
'Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine, His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him.'

This is part of the Orthodox teaching of theosis and nothing to do with explaining how the bread and wine become His Body and Blood. On this subject, such a vexed one in western Christianity later, St. Cyril of Alexandria has this wisdom for us:

We affirm that the Word from God the Father united to himself in some inscrutable and ineffable manner, a body endowed with mental life and that he came forth, man from woman, become what we are, not by change of nature but in gracious fulfilment of God’s plan. In willing to become man he did not abandon his being God by nature; though he descended to our limited level and worse the form of a slave, even in that state he remained in the transcendent realms of Godhead and in the Lordship belonging to his nature.
So we unite the Word from God the Father without merger, alteration or change to holy flesh owning mental life in a manner inexpressible and surpassing understanding, and confess one Son, Christ and Lord, the self-same God and man, not a diverse pair but one and the same, being and being seen to be both things. [L. Wickham, Selected Letters, p. 73.

This is entirely the line taken by the Orthodox Church from the beginning, and today, as we see in this from Metropolitan Kallistos:

"...the Orthodox Church believes that after consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the reality of the change, it has never attempted to explain the manner of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the neutral term metaballo, to 'turn about', 'change', or 'alter'."
(The Orthodox Church, p. 283, by Timothy Ware)

As we see it, one of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, with some saying the Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, whilst others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the Eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the Eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the Eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, 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 am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the Eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the Eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word"symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."

For us, it is one of the tragedies of the various splits in the Church, that this understanding has been lost in much of the West. We see, with sadness, the divisions between Protestants and Catholics on this issue, and we hope that here, the Orthodox fidelity to Holy Tradition may have something to offer.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Beamishboy has rightly reminded us of the witness we bear here. In the heat of discussion it is easy to let slip some comment which may be within the rules, but which is incompatible with Christian love. I am certainly guilty of this, and would like to offer any who have been offended by anything I have said, an apology.

What I would then like to do is to take this discussion back to where Montalban and Beamishboy were discussing the Eucharist. Here the ECFs can throw light that helps us.

The view advanced by Montalban was based upon the Scriptures he cited, but also upon the Holy Tradition of the Church; Beamishboy's view is one that also has a tradition, the reformed one which originates from the fifteenth century. So we might agree up front that both views have been advanced by pious and learned Christians, and even if Beamishboy's tradition might be of recent origin, it would be going too far to say that no one had advanced it before the reformers.

Let me also say up front that what follows is from my own Orthodox Tradition, so what is being expounded has nothing to do with Transubstantiation or developments of the common heritage which took place outside of the Orthodox understanding. I say nothing here about the Catholic understanding, simply that nothing that follows should be taken to involve Transubstantiation.

Montalban offered the relevant Scripture, so I shall not repeat them; the ECFs took those verses to mean that what happened in the Eucharist was real, not symbolic. Let us take the earliest Catechesis we have, that by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In what he writes he says nothing novel but teaches what he and those before him had been taught.
In Lecture XXII he writes:
'Since then, He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer?'
he says the same about This is My Blood, and goes on to say in chapter 3:
'Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine, His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him.'

This is part of the Orthodox teaching of theosis and nothing to do with explaining how the bread and wine become His Body and Blood. On this subject, such a vexed one in western Christianity later, St. Cyril of Alexandria has this wisdom for us:

This is entirely the line taken by the Orthodox Church from the beginning, and today, as we see in this from Metropolitan Kallistos:



As we see it, one of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, with some saying the Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, whilst others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the Eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the Eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the Eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, 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 am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the Eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the Eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word"symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."

For us, it is one of the tragedies of the various splits in the Church, that this understanding has been lost in much of the West. We see, with sadness, the divisions between Protestants and Catholics on this issue, and we hope that here, the Orthodox fidelity to Holy Tradition may have something to offer.

Peace,

Anglian

Hi Anglian,

Thanks for your very long post. I'm delighted that you have explained the Orthodox position very clearly. It is always an enriching experience to see Christians of other traditions striving to serve and please our Lord.

The beamishboy (I'll think I'll stop here and won't talk about my snow-white stallion; hehe. Psst, there are adults here!!!)

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You are very welcome. I have always found it most useful to know what it is other traditions hold. So much of our conflict comes from the fact that we use the same words in different ways so often.

That is not to deny that there may well be real differences we need to resolve, but it is to say that only by identifying what those really are, can we hope to present a more united witness to the God whom we all seek to serve as best we can.

I hope that you will begin to have some understanding of what the Orthodox mean when they write about 'Holy Tradition', and to see that far from being in some way 'dead' of fossilised, it is very much alive. To quote from one account I came across recently on the theme of whether 'Tradition' was not 'dead':

Orthodoxy does not accept such a time bound view. It does not look to the past so much as live in the awareness of the eternal &#8216;now&#8217; of the undivided Church in heaven and earth, in which modern Christians are contemporaneous and in communion with the saints and Fathers of earlier ages.....Freedom from fear is the hallmark of the dynamism of the Spirit. The Orthodox keeper of Tradition is not someone who clings to mediaeval beliefs through fear of letting go of what is no longer seriously tenable in the present age. He or she is a person who recognizes from experience certain truths as central to the gospel message and way of life, and is not afraid to remain faithful to them despite ridicule or persecution. [Gillian Crow &#8220;The Orthodox Vision of Wholeness&#8221; in Andrew Walker and Costa Carras Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World London, SPCK, 1996:9

The ECFs are as much a part of the Church as we are, and their witness lives on in their writings - which is why we might all be wise to care what they have to say - as part of Holy Tradition which helps correct our natural tendency to rely upon our own understanding alone.

Peace be with you - and your castle,

Anglian

p.s. I hope you will like my new signature. A.

 

[larryjf]

the ECFs took those verses to mean that what happened in the Eucharist was real, not symbolic.

Let's draw a clear distinction about what's being said.
As a Reformed believer myself, we do believe that the Lord's Supper is "real" we simply don't believe it's of the flesh. We believe that those who partake in a right manner do really receive grace by the Holy Spirit, and do "spiritually" feed upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

I would hope that all would agree that being spiritual doesn't mean the same thing as being symbolic. This is clearly what's being taught by Jesus in Jn 6, if He was teaching about the Lord's Supper...
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (Joh 6:63)
But since the Lord's Supper wasn't instituted yet, the teaching can't be concluded as referring to it, as it would have been irrational to teach those with Christ what wasn't instituted yet.

 

[Anglian]

Dear larryjf,

welcome on board, and thank you for the insights into your tradition. Yes, I think we are talking in the same vein.

As you can see from my rather lengthy post to Beamishboy (but, I guess for this subject, it is quite short!) we do not hold that 'real' and 'symbolic' should be taken as opposites. The most relevant part of that, I quote for convenience's sake here:

in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, 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 think that is not dissimilar to what you are saying in your post, but it would be interesting to know a little more. We have not, I think, had inputs here from your Tradition, so it would be good to hear a little more if you can spare the time.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[larryjf]

I don't consider "mystical" to be the same as "spiritual."

mystical in the Greek is "[SIZE=-1]&#956;&#965;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962;[/SIZE]" (mystikos)
spiritual in the Greek is "&#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#959;&#769;&#962;" (pneumatikos)

mystical basically means seeing with the eyes closed, while spiritual basically means not of the flesh.

I don't believe the Lord's Supper is mystical in this sense because we are to partake with our eyes wide open to the sacrifice of Christ. I believe it is spiritual because it is not of the flesh...as in not Christ's fleshly body and blood.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

You are very welcome. I have always found it most useful to know what it is other traditions hold. So much of our conflict comes from the fact that we use the same words in different ways so often.

That is not to deny that there may well be real differences we need to resolve, but it is to say that only by identifying what those really are, can we hope to present a more united witness to the God whom we all seek to serve as best we can.

I hope that you will begin to have some understanding of what the Orthodox mean when they write about 'Holy Tradition', and to see that far from being in some way 'dead' of fossilised, it is very much alive. To quote from one account I came across recently on the theme of whether 'Tradition' was not 'dead':

The ECFs are as much a part of the Church as we are, and their witness lives on in their writings - which is why we might all be wise to care what they have to say - as part of Holy Tradition which helps correct our natural tendency to rely upon our own understanding alone.

Peace be with you - and your castle,

Anglian

p.s. I hope you will like my new signature. A.

Dear Anglian,

I noticed your signature before I read your post. There is so much truth in it.

 

[Thekla]

if I can, to explicate a bit the term mysterion and its relation to the spiritual:

to close the eyes or mouth, but this is towards a purpose; it is to close these that one may "see further". In other words, it is to (in EO terms) "see with the eyes of the heart", where heart is a spiritual organ. In this sense, to close the eyes is to have the (spiritual) eyes opened.

This does not mean, when one "sees spiritually", that something is not visible. For example, in the NT - God is heard speaking. To some the words are audible, to others His words sound like thunder.

Mysterion, then is linked to both revelation and spirituality - and both are inexhaustible, not fully comprehensible by the finite mind.

 

[larryjf]

if I can, to explicate a bit the term mysterion and its relation to the spiritual:

to close the eyes or mouth, but this is towards a purpose; it is to close these that one may "see further". In other words, it is to (in EO terms) "see with the eyes of the heart", where heart is a spiritual organ. In this sense, to close the eyes is to have the (spiritual) eyes opened.

This does not mean, when one "sees spiritually", that something is not visible. For example, in the NT - God is heard speaking. To some the words are audible, to others His words sound like thunder.

Mysterion, then is linked to both revelation and spirituality - and both are inexhaustible, not fully comprehensible by the finite mind.

I believe it's a false dichotomy that sets up a division between the physical and spiritual in such a way that one has to cease physical perception to gain spiritual perception. That is too close to the Gnostic dichotomy for my taste.

One doesn't gain spiritual insight by focusing inwardly...rather, spiritual insight comes from reading the Scripture in the illumination of the Holy Spirit.