Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, forgive then their naivete then- they at least believed that Jesus's body and blood are actually present in the bread and wine-that He's really there-not just symbolically so. And maybe you could describe that better?
No, and the quotes you've been supplying don't imply that either nor does the EO position support that because the only way that statement makes sense is if we're speaking of substance/accident dichotomy or if you are saying that the bread itself becomes entirely flesh in every respect not simply in essence/substance. So unless you are saying that the bread becomes flesh in a scientifically determined way, taking on DNA and ligaments and hemoglobin in the wine you are assigning a position to people who have not taken it.
Right-unnecessary hair-splitting for the purpose of creating divison where it doesn't need to be. Good job. Not all Eastern commentators disagree by any means with transubstantiation BTW-they just don't bother trying to explain the mystery that far.
I never said they disagreed, I said that the EO church itself is principally silent on the matter because they don't deal with the metaphysics of it. I'm not even opposed to transubstantiation, it's your abuse of sources that I take issue with since you're essentially putting your views into others mouths. The ECF in no way would have envisioned their words taking on such a character and it has been the deceptive practice of proponents of transubstantiation to encode their language so that they recall the ECFs as a polemic measure. There simply would not be the conception of "actual flesh" being present since that cnception is dependent upon Aristotle's metaphysics of substance and accidents. As I said, unless you are saying that in a naive sense(that is to say the bread would be indistinguishable from human flesh upon physical inspection) then you are dependent on the philosophizing which neither the EO nor the ECF would by and large be familiar with so to state they would be in agreement with "real presence" meaning "actual flesh" there is no such support and any appearance of support is entirely brought out by your cherry picking not the author's intended meaning.
I haven't gone there; the discussion involves whether or not Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, transubstantiation or any other concept notwithstanding because transubstantiation and any way that many fathers, for example, expressed their beliefs both claim a real, not merely symbolic, presence.
And your "really present" distorts the issue, because you mean that to mean in some sense the bread and wine become flesh and blood which requires a metaphysic that allows for some sense of substantial change. The supposed agreement with the ECFs is not because the ECFs affirmed such a thing, but because the writers were careful in their language selection to conflate meanings so that words used by the ECF also took on Aristotlean flavor. The EO affirmation of transformation of the elements doesn't necessarily imply a change in essence/substance but often they speak of it in ways that easily convey that message because the dispute isn't fully understood. The disagreement between sign theorists for the most part is a matter of them being nominalists and so there is no "essence" to be transformed so if the bread does not become indistinguishable upon physical inspection then the bread remains bread, yet there is still the presence of Christ among the offerers on the basis of commemoration. The ECF writings are not incompatible with symbolic interpretations when the battle lines are properly drawn, as the agreement with scholastic views is superficial and a result of linguistic games on the part of the scholastics. Certainly the EO is closer to and intends to convey agreement with the RCC position but the reservation to elaborate is actually a fairly significant separation since the primary division is entirely philosophical between RCC and Zwinglist sign theories.
Mat 10:12 And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. 10:13 And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you.
WE do, however, believe that the Host is the Body and Blood of our Lord. That is important, belief in transubstantiation isn't unless you're Roman Cathllic.
That's not as significant as it's made out to be, because the principal separation between Zwinglian theorists and "real presence" claimants is a metaphysical dispute. The Zwinglian view is that Christ is always present with the believer, and so He does not become more present in bread and wine except as a commemoration. While some extremists will outright deny that the host is body and blood, memorialism is more about a rejection of the scholastic philosophy surrounding transubstantiation especially in its dependence on Aristotlean metaphysics. So ultimately the mysterious formulation of EO is not as far separated as those lumping all formulations which affirm a "real presence" into a single group opposed to those who prefer the terminology of ordinance to sacrament. Of course, the practical case is often muddled because the differences tend to be emphasized rather than seeking to understand the nuances of the positions and many in the Zwingliest traditions stress the idea that it is a symbol so excessively that often the polemic criticism is entirely warranted.
Bosh. Here's how it works. Believers in the Real Presence believe that the consecrated bread and wine are, in fact, the Body and Blood of our Lord, punto, full stop, end of. Modernist Protestants do not. To them it's just a sip and a nibble and taken in remembrance, no more. That;s why they're so very cavalier about it, ain't no big thing to them. But it's a very big thing indeed for those of who take our Lord's words, and those of St Paul, quite literally. And please spare us sophistries about "I guess you think our Lord was a door with hinges, too." If "this is my Body" was a mere metaphor, it's strange that He'd let many of His folloers leave Him over misunderstanding it. He didn't even offer any explanation for this "hard saying" to those closest to Him, simply asking them, in effect, "Y'all leaving too?"
Bit of the tail wagging the dog there, as there is no table in John 6. No physical bread, no physical wine. Nor is there a mention of "body," as it is sarx not soma. In fact, there's no mention of the breaking of bread and wine at all in the gospel of John in the sense of Eucharist and given that the last supper scene is quite extensive if there was as much significance to as those who have turned it into a superstition would have us believe that absense is quite strange. Certainly, there is a great distance between symbolic views but the difference is more a matter of emphasis and the denial is a matter of philosophy since the bread in every discernible way remains bread. The followers left not over the Eucharist(how could they, the feast at which it was instituted had not happened) but because Jesus was announcing a change in program, from miraculous meeting of physical needs through multiplication miracles to the hard life of discipleship.
Too clever by half. Traditionalists believe that the consecrated wine and bread are the actual Body and Blood of Christ, end of. Zwinglians do not believe that the consecrated wine and bread are the Body and Blood of Christ at all, and the the only significance of the Lord's Supper is a ritual done in remembrance.
So say we all.
As I said, they believe that the bread and wine are bread and wine, whose only significance is their use in the ritual.
That us the position taken by most Protestants.
Seriously? How many Protestants would even understand what you just said?
Yes, and this is a philosophical difference unless you are claiming that in the ordinary sense of flesh and blood(with ligaments, and myoglobin, and fat, and skin, and all the pieces of human flesh that confirm for us that it is human flesh) it becomes flesh and blood the separation is one of metaphysics.
If Christ is already present, how can He become more present?
The first half is true, the second is false. The significance is not simply the use in the ritual as the elements themselves are significant because Christ prescribed them. The issue for symbolists is the efficacy of the ritual itself in a superstitious sense, as the focus is on the role of the Spirit and the joining together with Christ.
The philosophical differences is key on that.
The words might need some unpacking, but it is a concentrated statement of what symbolic proponents have written since the position began.
Your summation of the protestant position shows a lack of understanding of the protestant position, as the composition of the elements are essentially secondary to the question for symbolic theorists. Symbolic theology is a rejection of superstitious claims about the composition of the elements and a placement of the emphasis on the covenental value of the elements and their import in Christ's giving of Himself on the cross. Given your last statement it is clear you've never actually read the arguments of symbolic theologians and simply dismiss unthinkingly based on dogmatics.
If you're beating the tub for the Zwinglian view you're wasting words on me, I reject it. I know the Scripture as well as you do, I suspect, so you're unlikely to sway me to your position.
Irrelevant.
Again, bosh.
Again, bosh.[/quote][/QUOTE]
