How can it be called orthodox if it is not biblical?

Some articles on the use of icons, the second one is long.

DEATH TO THE WORLD : ARCHIVES OF THE INNER DESERT

DEATH TO THE WORLD : ARCHIVES OF THE INNER DESERT

I would also dare to suggest that when you state "Standard Bible" you are referring to the particular collection of Scripture that most are familiar with, but they do not tend to be familiar with the fact that particular collection of books was instituted 1000s years after Scripture was canonized, when Luther and others decided to throw certain Deuterocanonical texts out. So really the "Standard" Bible is the one canonized in 375AD, not the one Luther played operation on.

Lucis said:

Wouldn't "church tradition" be a better way to describe this denomination? The bible never mention anything about praying to dead people or angels or the mother of Jesus. Instead it says that it is just one name that people can be saved by. And I don't want to offend anyone, but it seems like in this denomination people are very interested in empty rituals , long beards , fancy clothes, long ritualized prayers , incense, icons etc. and seem to be forgetting the words in the bible that the Kingdom of God is within us.

So how can this denomination that seen to got so much unbiblical be called things like "the ancient way", when the bible tells nothing about the tings that is common in it? Surely the true ancient way would be more like some of the non-denominational churches of today that only rely on the bible and nothing more , and that those churches would be the true orthodox churches.

Not writing this to offend anyone, just curious about things that seem strange to me. God bless.

Click to expand...

First off, it's not a "denomination."

Secondly, just because something is not mentioned in the Scriptures does not mean it isn't true.

When the NT authors wrote to the various churches, they took for granted the fact that their readers were already Christians.
In other words, they already knew about apostolic succession, the sacraments, etc. Even in Hebrews, Paul mentions them as "basic doctrines."

Contrary to what Protestants may think, the Bible does not show how to become a Christian-it shows how to live as one.
Big difference.

Ever read the Didache, or the early Church Fathers?
In the Didache (written around 80 AD, 15 years BEFORE Revelations was even written), it says, concerning the Lord's Supper:

"First confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure."

So we see, right from the beginning, the Church believed the Lord's Supper to be a sacrifice.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, described as heretics those who refuse to recognize the fact that the bread and wine is truly the LORD's Flesh and Blood.

He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos , meaning "universal," "complete" and "whole" to describe the church, writing:

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans (107 AD)

and again. . .

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1





Since the beginning of the Church, Christians would take the bodily remains of martyrs and venerate them.
Even the wood from the Cross was venerated!

In the Catacombs, there are prayers written to Mary from the early 2nd century.


As for Sola Scriptura. . .

The earliest book of the NT, Galatians, was written around 49 AD. What do you think the Christians had before then?

THE CHURCH!!

Jesus even said. . ."but if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector."

What do you think the church was like before the NT was written?!?!

The Bible comes from the church-NOT the other way around!

buzuxi02 said:

Following "only" the bible is proof that ones denomination was created years after the bible was written.

Click to expand...

The BEST argument against the sola scriptura heresy I have ever heard!

There are bad traditions and good traditions: in Mark 7:1-13 we read how Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for replacing the commandments of God with human tradition, and in Col. 2:8 Paul tells us to beware of men's traditions that are not according to Christ. Those are bad traditions. But let's look at some good traditions: Luke 11:42 - "These things you should have done, and not leave the others undone." That is, the imperative of doing good works does not mean that we should leave undone the traditional rituals and liturgical forms of worship. Also, in 1 Cor. 11:2 and 23, St. Paul wrote, "Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm the traditions (Greek paradosis = "that which is passed on or delivered"), even as I delivered (Greek paradidomi, "traditioned") them to you." And "For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered (Greek paradidomi) to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread." The Lord's Supper is the central Tradition of the Church, which was observed for decades before any books of the New Testament were written. Again, St. Paul wrote in 2 Thes. 2:15 - "So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter." Here we see there was a tradition or a body of doctrine that Paul passed on orally before he wrote this letter. A few verses later Paul wrote that this oral tradition was binding upon the Church: "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in rebellion, and not after the tradition which they received from us" (2 Thes. 3:6). This good tradition, called Holy Tradition, resides in the Church to which Christ promised - "However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you (plural, i.e. collectively, not individually) into all truth" (John 16:13). Interestingly, many modern Bible translations in English translate only the negative connotations of the Greek words paradosis as "tradition," but where it is used in a positive sense they translate it as "teaching" or "doctrine." It would thus appear that these translators may be trying to give an exclusively negative meaning to "tradition" although it is often used positively in the Bible.
As mentioned above, the verb form of paradosis is paradidomi in Greek, often used in the New Testament in the specialized sense of "delivering" or "passing on" a body of doctrine. Here are some more examples of its use:

• "Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word delivered them to us" (Luke 1:1-2);
• "All things have been delivered to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and he to whomever the Son desires to reveal him" (Luke 10:22);
• "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered the decrees [lit. dogmas] to them to keep which had been ordained by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4);
• "But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine [lit. teaching] which was delivered you" (Rom. 6:17);
• "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4);
• "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Pet. 2:21);
• "Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

What's fascinating is that in most if not all of the above verses, "delivered" or "traditioned" is in the past tense: these oral traditions existed before the written traditions that later were collected and formed the New Testament. They refer to orally "traditioning" a body of dogma or teaching to the assembly of believers, the Church. We have seen in 2 Thes. 2:15 that Paul passed on (transmitted, or "traditioned") to the Thessalonians some things that were not written down. Many things were passed on by oral tradition. St. John also wrote of this: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" (Jn. 21:25), and "Having many things to write unto you, I would not write [word added] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full" (2 Jn. 1:12, see also 3 Jn. 1:13-14). The Early Church existed and even flourished for 30 years on the teaching that Christ and the Apostles orally "traditioned" before the first epistle of the New Testament was written, and it was another 30 years, about A.D. 90, before the Apostle John wrote the Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. Through all of those first 60 years the Church flourished without the whole New Testament.

An interesting discussion. Interesting primarily how people mean different things by the same words, like "tradition." As rdhosken pointed out above, tradition is anything that is delivered from one generation to another, "handed down." This could be written or oral, obviously, so what determines whether it is "biblical" isn't whether it was written but whether it was coincident with and in harmony with what had already been written (OT) and what became written (NT).

kamalayka said:

First off, it's not a "denomination."

Secondly, just because something is not mentioned in the Scriptures does not mean it isn't true.

When the NT authors wrote to the various churches, they took for granted the fact that their readers were already Christians.
In other words, they already knew about apostolic succession, the sacraments, etc. Even in Hebrews, Paul mentions them as "basic doctrines."

Click to expand...

With dure respect, I think you're reading theology back into the NT. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but formalized doctrines of the sacraments came much later in the church's understanding. Minor point also, but very few people still believe that Hebrews was written by Paul. Where do you find apostolic succession in Hebrews?

Contrary to what Protestants may think, the Bible does not show how to become a Christian-it shows how to live as one.
Big difference.

Click to expand...

So it doesn't teach that one must repent, confess Christ, believe the resurrection and seek baptism? Funny, I thought it did.

Ever read the Didache, or the early Church Fathers?
In the Didache (written around 80 AD, 15 years BEFORE Revelations was even written), it says, concerning the Lord's Supper:

"First confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure."

So we see, right from the beginning, the Church believed the Lord's Supper to be a sacrifice.

Click to expand...

So when Paul said we should offer ourselves as living sacrifices, he meant we should lie down on altars and become oblations? I apologize for the sarcasm but "sacrifice" can mean many things and the Didache cannot be used to derive a whole theology of exactly how the "thanksgiving sacrifice" (which is what the Eucharist means) was understood in 80 AD.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, described as heretics those who refuse to recognize the fact that the bread and wine is truly the LORD's Flesh and Blood.

He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos , meaning "universal," "complete" and "whole" to describe the church, writing:

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans (107 AD)

and again. . .

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

Click to expand...

You have a valid point, but beware of making the anachronism that I've seen many people make with Ignatius here--he was not writing against people who just denied a real physical presence in the eucharist, but against Docetists who denied the real presence BECAUSE they denied that Christ had a body to begin with. This is NOT identical to those who confess the incarnation but understand the "real presence" in a spiritual sence. Granted Ignatius quite obviously did not take it to be a spiritual presence, but this is not a discourse against a particular view of the sacrament but rather against a denial of Christ's humanity.

Since the beginning of the Church, Christians would take the bodily remains of martyrs and venerate them.
Even the wood from the Cross was venerated!

In the Catacombs, there are prayers written to Mary from the early 2nd century.

Click to expand...

They also appeared to believe that to sin after baptism was to be lost eternally, which eventually led to postponing baptism until as late as possible or at least until after "youthful indiscretion" had run its course. Not everything from antiquity is necessarily correct.

As for Sola Scriptura. . .

The earliest book of the NT, Galatians, was written around 49 AD. What do you think the Christians had before then?

THE CHURCH!!

Jesus even said. . ."but if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector."

What do you think the church was like before the NT was written?!?!

The Bible comes from the church-NOT the other way around!

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

This is a false dichotomy. Scripture is the truth, the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Before Galatians was written the Church still had Paul and his gospel being spread and preached. Just because it wasn't yet written doesn't mean it wasn't Scriptural. Nor does it mean that the tradition served some role "alongside" Scripture. As near as I can tell the early church considered them coincident and inseparable. Yes Sola Scriptura has weaknesses and can be challenged, but so can Catholic and Orthodox concepts of tradition.

Now I will grant that tradition plays a much larger role in the life of any church or denomination than most denominations will care to admit, if they realize it at all. EVERYONE has a tradition. Scripture cannot be interpreted outside of a tradition. So it's a matter of discovering the RIGHT tradition. The EO may have it and I'm still prayerfully investigating it.

but against Docetists who denied the real presence BECAUSE they denied that Christ had a body to begin with. This is NOT identical to those who confess the incarnation but understand the "real presence" in a spiritual sence.

Click to expand...

A denial of the real presence would make sense if one came from a gnostic or docetist perspective that viewed matter as evil or unworthy of deification. Ones understanding of the Eucharist is intimately connected with ones Christology and understanding of creation. I wonder if the modern rejection of the real presence is also influenced by hidden docetist and anti-creation sentiments in some instances?

Lucis said:

Wouldn't "church tradition" be a better way to describe this denomination?

Click to expand...

Hi

We don't believe the Orthodox Church is a denomination.

The bible never mention anything about praying to dead people or angels or the mother of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Well, simply those people and angels you mentioned aren't dead. They're alive in Christ. Those Saints are the cloud of witnesses in the Bible.

Instead it says that it is just one name that people can be saved by.

Click to expand...

Yes, Christ. We haven't said otherwise.

And I don't want to offend anyone, but it seems like in this denomination people are very interested in empty rituals , long beards , fancy clothes, long ritualized prayers , incense, icons etc. and seem to be forgetting the words in the bible that the Kingdom of God is within us.

Click to expand...

You see, nothing we do is empty. Everything we do in our worship service means something, and it has to do with Christ. The beards are a tradition taken all the way to the Jews. Here's some info on that:

Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave their beard... (Lev. 21: 5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out ward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers 6:5-6).

Tradition of Long Hair and Beards

Since every Orthodox service the priest and chanter (and deacons) read from either or both the OT and the NT, I wouldn't say they have forgotten. Our services are centered around Christ, and our church compiled the Bible.

So how can this denomination that seen to got so much unbiblical be called things like "the ancient way", when the bible tells nothing about the tings that is common in it? Surely the true ancient way would be more like some of the non-denominational churches of today that only rely on the bible and nothing more , and that those churches would be the true orthodox churches.

Click to expand...

The reasons why this seems this way to you is because you haven't been exposed to the history of the True Church, history of Christianity, nor the teachings taught from the beginning. What we do are indeed Biblical. The Bible was compiled by our Church. The Church came before the NT Bible. The Holy Bible is part of Holy Tradition. They are inseparable.

Not writing this to offend anyone, just curious about things that seem strange to me. God bless.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can understand how you would think it strange since you haven't been exposed to the Eastern culture, nor its worship. You might want to visit an Orthodox Church and ask a priest your questions. He would be more than happy to answer all of your questions. God bless.

Here's some very helpful videos on the history of the Orthodox Church. They're in order parts 1, 2, and 3. They're about 5-7 minutes each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tirUy13Q_L8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h41JmCCH7AQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJYdUW8DzY

Christos Anesti said:

A denial of the real presence would make sense if one came from a gnostic or docetist perspective that viewed matter as evil or unworthy of deification. Ones understanding of the Eucharist is intimately connected with ones Christology and understanding of creation. I wonder if the modern rejection of the real presence is also influenced by hidden docetist and anti-creation sentiments in some instances?

Click to expand...

Certainly one's Christology plays a role in understanding the real presence. I suppose it plays a role in your understanding of pretty much everything If one denied that Christ had a real physical presence anywhere, then one would of course logically deny the real presence of the Eucharist--yet notice that logically one would deny even the "memorialist" position wherein the sacrament is seen as only a memorial of his broken body--because the docetist would deny there was any true body to be memorialized.

Calvin denied the real physical presence for several reasons, but among them was his belief that Christ's physical presence would necessitate that his body be located simultaneously around the world in many places, thereby giving divine attributes (omnipresence) to his human nature. He believed, as do those who followed him, that a real physical presence would actually violate the Chalcedonean definition of the two natures that are never mingled together. There was certainly no docetic or gnostic tendency in Calvin. However he was reacting against Transubstantiation, which led to people literally worshipping the bread and wine (still do) in Roman Catholic churches. I don't think this was the case in the east, someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway for the above reasons I don't think Ignatius' argument against the docetists can be taken to refute those who hold to Nicean/Chalcedonian theology/Christology, but who deny a real physical presence in the eucharist precisely because they believe Christ's body to be in Heaven and not on Earth. It can legitimately call into question whether one can consistently hold to orthodox Christology and still deny a physical presence...but that is a different question.

Still Ignatius' statements would seem to be a big hurdle to those who believe that a doctrine of "real presence" actually developed over time. He wrote somewhere around 115 A.D. I believe, which is an awfully short span of time for such a thing to just develop and for the church to run off the rails with regards to the Eucharist. I have Calvinistic leanings but Ignatius' letters do throw a real wrench in my gears when it comes to the Eucharist and the heirarchy of the church (deacons->presbyters->bishops). Partly why I'm hanging around these forums

wturri78 said:

Certainly one's Christology plays a role in understanding the real presence. I suppose it plays a role in your understanding of pretty much everything If one denied that Christ had a real physical presence anywhere, then one would of course logically deny the real presence of the Eucharist--yet notice that logically one would deny even the "memorialist" position wherein the sacrament is seen as only a memorial of his broken body--because the docetist would deny there was any true body to be memorialized.

Calvin denied the real physical presence for several reasons, but among them was his belief that Christ's physical presence would necessitate that his body be located simultaneously around the world in many places, thereby giving divine attributes (omnipresence) to his human nature. He believed, as do those who followed him, that a real physical presence would actually violate the Chalcedonean definition of the two natures that are never mingled together. (deacons->presbyters->bishops). Partly why I'm hanging around these forums

Click to expand...

Dear Wturri;

If this is the case then Calvin had a poor knowledge of the christology of the third Ecumenical council of Ephesus. Calvins view is basically nestorian, and it would be an example as to why the Copts rejected Chalcedon. They rejected it because it can be interpreted in a nestorian manner. The Church held the 5th Ecumenical council to further clarify Chalcedonian theology (and avoid interpretions as Calvin) as an attempt to reconcile with the non-chalcedonian faction.

The council of Ephesus approved the 12 anathemas of St Cyril, the ones that pertain to this discussion:

II.
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.


III.
If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδ&#8179, which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴ&#957: let him be anathema.

V.
If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because “the Word was made flesh,” and “hath a share in flesh and blood as we do:” let him be anathema.

VI.
If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess him as at the same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema.


In the 5th Ecumenical council, anathemas are passed condemning both Nestorianism and monophysitism the two polar extremes. In the 4th anathema it says:

....'As a matter of fact the word “union” (τῆς ἑνώςεω&#962 has many meanings, and the partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed that these natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God, condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognises the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united, but also allows no separation.'

I think something to keep in mind is that if God wants any human person to be in multiple places, He can do it if He wants. this does not violate any aspect of either the Divine or human nature, because it is only by the will and power of the Godhead would this be allowed. now, for anyone who says that's omnipresence, it's not. being in multiple places at the same time is not the same as being everywhere present at all times.

I would actually add that the mistake Calvin appears to have made is the same mistake the iconoclasts made in the 8th century. When trying to construct a Christological argument against the use of icons, they postulated that an icon necessarily separates Christ's natures (by only depicting His physical, or human, nature) - however, in this, they committed Nestorianism.

The problem with the natures/persons language has always been the temptation to treat natures as if they are real things - things that can be acted on. They aren't. Natures are not things. You can't (unless you are God who is above and beyond all things) "see" human nature or "touch" it or really do anything to it, because it isn't a real thing. It's an abstract list of attributes common (or natural) to a category of things (i.e. humans, or God). When we say Christ has two natures, we mean that that which is natural to Christ is that which is fully natural to a human AND that which is fully natural to God. This is why the Cyrillian forumla (miaphysitism) is acceptable according to Chalcedon and the 5th ecumenical council. St. Cyril taught that Christ was from two natures, but in one nature (and asserted that the one nature is a sort of "super list" with a full list of human attributes and a full list of Divine attributes). The Church has preferred the language of two natures to cut down on confusion, but keep in mind this is all just abstraction.

Christ isn't two natures. Christ IS one person - He demonstrates (or "has") both natures in full. But Christ is ONE.

The Eucharist isn't Christ's human nature (just as an icon doesn't depcit Christ's human nature). The Eucharist is Christ, just as an icon depicts Christ - one person. A person is REAL - you can act on a person, or depict a person (if they're physical). In the mystery that is the Incarnation, that means that the elements of the Eucharist (being the physical aspect of Christ's real pressence) are His "flesh and blood" even as they are bread and wine.

In Christ,
Macarius

Some new stuff to ponder...thanks for the replies. I am not terribly familiar with the anathemas you listed here, although I'm not sure that I see how Calvin's view violated them (that's based on nearly 30 seconds of intense research conducted in this forum)

Macarius made some interesting points I hadn't correlated before. Calvinism is in fact very iconoclastic and does make the argument that the icons separate the human from the divine nature and thereby violate the Chalcedonian definitions. They also hold to a spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans are not iconoclastic and do not reject images--nor do they kneel or pray before them, but I guess that's a matter of practice--and they do hold to a real presence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist. I guess these things are intertwined. It makes me realize how unproductive and simplistic many arguments are among different groups (especially of Protestants) where one or two Bible verses are bandied back and forth but the real underlying issues are never actually addressed.

I'm sure I've completely derailed this thread by now, but if the Real Presence does not confuse the natures or assign divine attributes to the human nature, then why did Rome develop the "Transmigration of Attributes" theory to show that divine attributes may sometimes be transferred to the human nature or vice versa--I didn't study it in much depth but heard a RC apologist explain it once on EWTN addressing this very issue...it seemed to me an implicit admission that Calvin had a point, and also seemed like something that was invented after the fact to justify a prior belief. In short it smelled a little fishy to me.

And "Rome did that because they're too rationalistic" isn't an acceptable answer

wturri78 said:

Some new stuff to ponder...thanks for the replies. I am not terribly familiar with the anathemas you listed here, although I'm not sure that I see how Calvin's view violated them (that's based on nearly 30 seconds of intense research conducted in this forum)

Click to expand...

His arguments fail, in the incredibly limited undestanding I have of them, to grasp the essential unity of Christ as one person. That's where he bites into the anathemas.

Macarius made some interesting points I hadn't correlated before. Calvinism is in fact very iconoclastic and does make the argument that the icons separate the human from the divine nature and thereby violate the Chalcedonian definitions.

Click to expand...

The same church that wrote the Chalcedonian defintions used icons extensively, and later wrote the decisions of the 7th ecumenical council which condemend iconoclasm precisely because it was a Christological heresy.

The simple point of iconography is this: we can depict God (though only the Incarnate God the Son) because God became human, and I can depict a human. To say I cannot depict God is to separate Christ's two natures. If Christ is God, and I depict Christ, I depict God.

The more complex point is that Christ is one person. Whatever I do to Christ I do to Christ - not to a nature. I cannot depict only the human nature. That's just silly. You can't depict a nature at all. It isn't a real thing - persons and things demonstrate / have / are "in" a nature (a category of things) but only things can be depicted or acted on.

They also hold to a spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

I think the two are related, which is why I think the Orthodox Church would consider the spiritual/symbolic/remembrance view of the communion to be a heresy if it were to arise within the Orthodox Church. It hasn't yet, but given its relation to the Incarnation and Christology, the issue touches on the heart of our faith.

Lutherans are not iconoclastic and do not reject images--nor do they kneel or pray before them, but I guess that's a matter of practice--and they do hold to a real presence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

Yes - so far as I know the 7th council didn't go into depth on what one MUST do with icons (it gave a few instructions on what not to do), it just was concerned that we be theologically ok with icons (or we violate the Incarnation).

I guess these things are intertwined. It makes me realize how unproductive and simplistic many arguments are among different groups (especially of Protestants) where one or two Bible verses are bandied back and forth but the real underlying issues are never actually addressed.

Click to expand...

I agree.

In Christ,
Macarius

I guess it always seemed a little odd to me to day that an image of Christ separated his natures because it showed only the human nature--for the same reason you just described, namely that a "nature" is an abstract concept. Those who looked right at him only saw his "human nature." The Orthodox (and I suppose other forms of the "real" presence) is consistent in teaching that the whole Christ is present at the liturgy. The memorial position is at least consistent in saying that the whole Christ is present in heaven and not on earth. The "spiritual presence" kind of leaves his "human nature" in heaven and his "divine nature" on earth in the sacrament, which always was a bit confuzzling to me.

The video about Orthodoxy was interesting. Stephen Baldwin narrating? Whodathunkit? His family must be so disappointed with him!

wturri78 said:

I guess it always seemed a little odd to me to day that an image of Christ separated his natures because it showed only the human nature--for the same reason you just described, namely that a "nature" is an abstract concept. Those who looked right at him only saw his "human nature." The Orthodox (and I suppose other forms of the "real" presence) is consistent in teaching that the whole Christ is present at the liturgy. The memorial position is at least consistent in saying that the whole Christ is present in heaven and not on earth. The "spiritual presence" kind of leaves his "human nature" in heaven and his "divine nature" on earth in the sacrament, which always was a bit confuzzling to me.

The video about Orthodoxy was interesting. Stephen Baldwin narrating? Whodathunkit? His family must be so disappointed with him!

Click to expand...

Eh, I'm sure his mama and papa still love the stuffing outta him.

The memorial position is at least consistent in saying that the whole Christ is present in heaven and not on earth.

Click to expand...

I agree, I am a memorial and view Christ as at the right hand of the Father where as the Holy Spirit was sent to earth as a counselor/comforter. I also find it odd that those who believe Christ whole person is in the Eucharist would also claim his presence to be represented by paint on wood. But I guess if I viewed it the Eastern Orthodox way I would be Eastern Orthodox.

Being God wouldn't Jesus be ominpresent?

Livindesert said:

I agree, I am a memorial and view Christ as at the right hand of the Father where as the Holy Spirit was sent to earth as a counselor/comforter.

Click to expand...

The difficulty we (the Orthodox) have with the memorial view is that it is inconsistent with the thrust of every Eucharistic passage except two lines from 1 Corinthians, and even in that passage (1 Cor 11) there are several things that suggest that it isn't purely memorial in its thrust. Nothing says Christ can't be fully present in the Eucharist and have the Eucharist still be a memorial (among other things).

Additionally, the early church unambiguously believed the Eucharist to be fully Christ (they were much less ambiguous even than the Scriptures).

I understand that we'll disagree over at least one of those two claims, but we are responsible to pass on the traditions as they've been delivered to us (harkening back to that 1 Cor passage). It may be more philosophically convenient or easier to assert the Eucharist is merely a memorial or symbol, but that would be a betrayal of who we are.

I also find it odd that those who believe Christ whole person is in the Eucharist would also claim his presence to be represented by paint on wood.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused as to why that is odd. Perhaps you could clarify for me?

I should say that the nature of Christ's presence in each is entirely different. The icon merely depicts Christ - in no way is the icon Christ. The Eucharist makes Christ present not in a representative way (as an icon does) but in reality. The Eucharist is Christ's body and blood.

In Christ,
Macarius