Immaculate Conception

[Major1]

I'm not sure I can help. Yes, the Eucharist IS the Body and blood of Christ. I could possibly answer a few more questions, depending on what they are, but we don't define it much more than that. It is a Mystery.

I will offer that when I first heard discussion of the Catholic teaching when I was a child (remember, a child!) ... I imagined a literal cup filled with literal blood containing literal lumps of flesh, magically transformed. I was horrified! I knew I didn't believe that, and rightly classified it as something non-Christian and magical-type thinking. But of course I learned, this is not what Catholics believe either.

Now, if you were asking me to assent to Catholic teaching, I think it would be only fair to present the whole Catechism on the topic. And as far as I'm aware, from half -remembered reading before, it really is too defined for me to agree.

I was told once that Catholics were pushed to define their faith so minutely partially in response to certain political pressures in the world? I have sympathy for that, and am thankful that we Orthodox never did so. But the end result I think is that we are uncomfortable with some of the teaching on the Eucharist.

Btw, I know apologists can be polemical. And there does exist a need, IMO, to be able to clarify our differences. For inquirers, newly Orthodox, Catholics, and those who may need or want to know in order to understand each other, etc, it is useful to have access to the knowledge so we can understand ourselves and one another.

But no, I've never met an Orthodox layperson or clergy who concerned themselves overmuch. To be honest, most of our parish are cradle Orthodox, and they care so little that not only do they not really know the differences between us and Catholics, they don't even know the differences between us and Protestants, and most assume that Protestant is like a united denomination of sorts, as if all Protestants believed the exact same things. This is why I am often talking to visitors. Others in the parish can explain Orthodoxy MUCH better than I. But they don't even speak the same theological language as non-Orthodox, to be able to understand the question asked, oftentimes.

They generally know that the schism happened, and that Catholics by definition are in communion with the Pope of Rome. And they know Protestants split from Catholics. But they often assume birth or ethnicity is the main difference, along with a more relaxed worship style among Protestants. That is often all they know. (I know, I will get asked questions, and if it involves a Protestant, I ask what kind. I nearly always get a blank look, and they just repeat, "Protestant, Protestant!" It's very difficult to get ideas across.)

I wonder if you would agree that all the orthodox Churches believe in the concept of "transubstantiation" (in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is completely and physically present in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity), not because it was coined by the Catholic Church, but because it is based on the Tradition.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You said.........
But no, I've never met an Orthodox layperson or clergy who concerned themselves overmuch. To be honest, most of our parish are cradle Orthodox, and they care so little that not only do they not really know the differences between us and Catholics, they don't even know the differences between us and Protestants, and most assume that Protestant is like a united denomination of sorts, as if all Protestants believed the exact same things.

How very sad that is. It begs the question..........Are they saved individuals?

If the answer is yes, then how would they know it????????

I'm afraid you COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying, and further show a complete lack of knowkedge regarding what Orthodoxy is.

Would you say a Southern Baptist was "sad" and question their salvation if they didn't obsess over, or even know the differences between themselves and the First Nazarenes?

It is really out of line to question whether Orthodox are Christians. I really can't formulate a reply that addresses your question without it coming across sounding the wrong way, since I have only words on a screen.

I thank you for your concern, if that's what it is.

If you wish to know, perhaps an unbiased study of Church history might enlighten you?

God be with you.

 

[Major1]

You know I would be curious on what Orthodox truly think are the differences between them and Catholics concerning the Eucharist. In my experience normally what I get in response is that "well you Catholics try to explain the "how" of the Eucharist, and for us it is a mystery." But that is about as far as I have seen it go. Perhaps a thread in TT may be something to do.

Again........that is really scary to me.

The idea of a part of worship being done and not knowing why could lead someone to be following Jim Jones.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wonder if you would agree that all the orthodox Churches believe in the concept of "transubstantiation" (in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is completely and physically present in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity), not because it was coined by the Catholic Church, but because it is based on the Tradition.

I think it would be fair for you to define "Tradition" before I answer that. Another potential source of misunderstanding, otherwise?

You are correct that we don't base our beliefs on Catholicism, in any sense.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You know I would be curious on what Orthodox truly think are the differences between them and Catholics concerning the Eucharist. In my experience normally what I get in response is that "well you Catholics try to explain the "how" of the Eucharist, and for us it is a mystery." But that is about as far as I have seen it go. Perhaps a thread in TT may be something to do.

TT would be the proper place to explore that. Or St. Justin's subforum of TAW, if you like. More Orthodox would likely participate. But TT is the most fitting.

Again........that is really scary to me.

The idea of a part of worship being done and not knowing why could lead someone to be following Jim Jones.

We know exactly why we do what we do, and where it came from.

It simply isn't based on the Catholic Catechism. Though we share common roots (indeed, should not all of Christianity? Christ, Pentecost, the Apostles?) ... we do not derive anything from Catholicism.

(No insult to Catholics, that is just a historic fact, relating to the Schism in 1054.)

 

[Major1]

I'm afraid you COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying, and further show a complete lack of knowkedge regarding what Orthodoxy is.

Would you say a Southern Baptist was "sad" and question their salvation if they didn't obsess over, or even know the differences between themselves and the First Nazarenes?

It is really out of line to question whether Orthodox are Christians. I really can't formulate a reply that addresses your question without it coming across sounding the wrong way, since I have only words on a screen.

I thank you for your concern, if that's what it is.

If you wish to know, perhaps an unbiased study of Church history might enlighten you?

God be with you.

Thank you for your reply and concern.

What I know and do not know is not the point neither is it relevant. I responded to YOUR words when you stated....................
"But no, I've never met an Orthodox layperson or clergy who concerned themselves overmuch. To be honest, most of our parish are cradle Orthodox, and they care so little that not only do they not really know the differences between us and Catholics, they don't even know the differences between us and Protestants, and most assume that Protestant is like a united denomination of sorts, as if all Protestants believed the exact same things."

Your actual words do not require a degree to understand. I just can not imagine a person being involved in Christian ministry and not have the knowledge between what he believes and others believe. To me that is startling!

I have never in my life thought to ask someone being sad if they were saved whether they were Baptist, Catholic or Orthodox or Jewish.

 

[Major1]

I think it would be fair for you to define "Tradition" before I answer that. Another potential source of misunderstanding, otherwise?

You are correct that we don't base our beliefs on Catholicism, in any sense.

Certainly. "Traditions" are what we do because someone in the past told us that it was the thing to do.

 

[All4Christ]

Thank you for your reply and concern.

What I know and do not know is not the point neither is it relevant. I responded to YOUR words when you stated....................
"But no, I've never met an Orthodox layperson or clergy who concerned themselves overmuch. To be honest, most of our parish are cradle Orthodox, and they care so little that not only do they not really know the differences between us and Catholics, they don't even know the differences between us and Protestants, and most assume that Protestant is like a united denomination of sorts, as if all Protestants believed the exact same things."

Your actual words do not require a degree to understand. I just can not imagine a person being involved in Christian ministry and not have the knowledge between what he believes and others believe. To me that is startling!

I have never in my life thought to ask someone being sad if they were saved whether they were Baptist, Catholic or Orthodox or Jewish.

Why would someone need to know what others believe in detail? Isn't it most important to know why you believe what you believe? I don't need to know detailed theology about the Christian Alliance Church for example to know why I believe what I believe. I'm pretty well versed in various belief systems myself, but I won't condemn someone for not taking the time to learn other people's beliefs. I do think it is beneficial to know the basics, but it won't change their standing with God just because they aren't aware of others' beliefs.

My parish is different in our level of understanding, as most of us are not cradle Orthodox - and most have been some Protestant denomination or part of the Catholic Church before they became Orthodox. That doesn't make us better than the people in Anastasia's parish.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for your reply and concern.

What I know and do not know is not the point neither is it relevant. I responded to YOUR words when you stated....................
"But no, I've never met an Orthodox layperson or clergy who concerned themselves overmuch. To be honest, most of our parish are cradle Orthodox, and they care so little that not only do they not really know the differences between us and Catholics, they don't even know the differences between us and Protestants, and most assume that Protestant is like a united denomination of sorts, as if all Protestants believed the exact same things."

Your actual words do not require a degree to understand. I just can not imagine a person being involved in Christian ministry and not have the knowledge between what he believes and others believe. To me that is startling!

I have never in my life thought to ask someone being sad if they were saved whether they were Baptist, Catholic or Orthodox or Jewish.

If you had understanding of Orthodoxy, it might make more sense.

Many converts to Orthodoxy are among those most educated about what everyone believes.

But I spoke of my own parish. They are mostly cradle Orthodox. They were born in Greece, and emigrated to the US, bringing their faith with them.

You read about the Church at Thessolaniki in the Scriptures? And other Churches named after cities? That's how Christianity was. One Church, divided by locations, all with the same beliefs.

The Catholics schismed and created their own Church (though to be fair, they will probably claim all the other Churches split from them). The Protestant Reformation came about because if a desire to reform Catholicism. Many Protestant denominations have been the result, mostly of a continual desire to reform.

Meanwhile, the Church in Greece, remained. Kept doing what she had been doing, through the centuries. It is with a pure and simple heart that these people I speak of were born into the Church, grew up in the Church, learned the faith ... and assume that everyone else believes in God and follows Christ in the same way. Like the early Church, we consider division among believers to be A Very Bad Thing. It is in thinking GOOD of others that my fellow parishioners assume that all believe the same. They can't envision someone denying Paul as an Apostle, or denying the Holy Trinity, or embarking on many other errors great and small.

So it is not a bad thing. Yes, they are "saved". They are some of the most Christian people I know. But they don't obsess and pick over errors of others. It probably would never occur to most of them.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Certainly. "Traditions" are what we do because someone in the past told us that it was the thing to do.

Who told? That is an important question.

 

[All4Christ]

If you had understanding of Orthodoxy, it might make more sense.

Many converts to Orthodoxy are among those most educated about what everyone believes.

But I spoke of my own parish. They are mostly cradle Orthodox. They were born in Greece, and emigrated to the US, bringing their faith with them.

You read about the Church at Thessolaniki in the Scriptures? And other Churches named after cities? That's how Christianity was. One Church, divided by locations, all with the same beliefs.

The Catholics schismed and created their own Church (though to be fair, they will probably claim all the other Churches split from them). The Protestant Reformation came about because if a desire to reform Catholicism. Many Protestant denominations have been the result, mostly of a continual desire to reform.

Meanwhile, the Church in Greece, remained. Kept doing what she had been doing, through the centuries. It is with a pure and simple heart that these people I speak of were born into the Church, grew up in the Church, learned the faith ... and assume that everyone else believes in God and follows Christ in the same way. Like the early Church, we consider division among believers to be A Very Bad Thing. It is in thinking GOOD of others that my fellow parishioners assume that all believe the same. They can't envision someone denying Paul as an Apostle, or denying the Holy Trinity, or embarking on many other errors great and small.

So it is not a bad thing. Yes, they are "saved". They are some of the most Christian people I know. But they don't obsess and pick over errors of others. It probably would never occur to most of them.

A much better explanation than what I tried to say

 

[Erose]

TT would be the proper place to explore that. Or St. Justin's subforum of TAW, if you like. More Orthodox would likely participate. But TT is the most fitting.

I started one in TT.

We know exactly why we do what we do, and where it came from.

It simply isn't based on the Catholic Catechism. Though we share common roots (indeed, should not all of Christianity? Christ, Pentecost, the Apostles?) ... we do not derive anything from Catholicism.

(No insult to Catholics, that is just a historic fact, relating to the Schism in 1054.)

Not taken as an insult. Our beliefs though, I think we can agree, comes from the same source.

 

[FenderTL5]

I just can not imagine a person being involved in Christian ministry and not have the knowledge between what he believes and others believe. To me that is startling!

Odd.
Wasn't it you that insisted that neither the Lutherans nor Anglicans believed in the real presence just a page or so ago?

 

[ViaCrucis]

@ViaCrucis @Tigger45 would this match the traditional Lutheran understanding?

In the strictest sense, the Lutheran rejection of Transubstantiation is not based upon a philosophical rejection of the underlying propositions; but rather it stems from attempting to rationalize the Mystery through complicated philosophical arguments. Our Confessions state:

"As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread." - The Smalcald Articles III.VI.5

It's not even that Transubstantiation is itself necessarily wrong, (in theory, it might even be on some level correct); but that there is no basis for it in Scripture and the teaching of the Church; and it ends up rationalizing away the Mystery and attempts to ignore the plain reality that bread and wine are bread and wine. The Mystery isn't how, when, where, etc bread and wine can become the flesh and blood of our Savior; it's that it is the very flesh and blood of our Savior broken and shed for us which is Sacred Mystery. From the Lutheran POV the language of transmutation is itself alien; because it's not about confessing the change of one thing into another; it's about confessing that these meager elements are as Christ our Lord and God said they were, His body and blood, which we receive and confess solely by faith in the Word of our Lord Jesus.

I don't know that this is in disagreement with Bulgakov or agreement; I suspect that Bulgakov's argument is perhaps a much more philosophically worded way of saying much the same.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[All4Christ]

In the strictest sense, the Lutheran rejection of Transubstantiation is not based upon a philosophical rejection of the underlying propositions; but rather it stems from attempting to rationalize the Mystery through complicated philosophical arguments. Our Confessions state:

"As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread." - The Smalcald Articles III.VI.5

It's not even that Transubstantiation is itself necessarily wrong, (in theory, it might even be on some level correct); but that there is no basis for it in Scripture and the teaching of the Church; and it ends up rationalizing away the Mystery and attempts to ignore the plain reality that bread and wine are bread and wine. The Mystery isn't how, when, where, etc bread and wine can become the flesh and blood of our Savior; it's that it is the very flesh and blood of our Savior broken and shed for us which is Sacred Mystery. From the Lutheran POV the language of transmutation is itself alien; because it's not about confessing the change of one thing into another; it's about confessing that these meager elements are as Christ our Lord and God said they were, His body and blood, which we receive and confess solely by faith in the Word of our Lord Jesus.

I don't know that this is in disagreement with Bulgakov or agreement; I suspect that Bulgakov's argument is perhaps a much more philosophically worded way of saying much the same.

-CryptoLutheran

We do tend to avoid philosophical descriptions in all dogmatic statements regarding the Eucharist, as it is easy to introduce errors in theology. Our main dogmatic statement is that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ...a mystery is the best way to describe it

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the strictest sense, the Lutheran rejection of Transubstantiation is not based upon a philosophical rejection of the underlying propositions; but rather it stems from attempting to rationalize the Mystery through complicated philosophical arguments. Our Confessions state:

"As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread." - The Smalcald Articles III.VI.5

It's not even that Transubstantiation is itself necessarily wrong, (in theory, it might even be on some level correct); but that there is no basis for it in Scripture and the teaching of the Church; and it ends up rationalizing away the Mystery and attempts to ignore the plain reality that bread and wine are bread and wine. The Mystery isn't how, when, where, etc bread and wine can become the flesh and blood of our Savior; it's that it is the very flesh and blood of our Savior broken and shed for us which is Sacred Mystery. From the Lutheran POV the language of transmutation is itself alien; because it's not about confessing the change of one thing into another; it's about confessing that these meager elements are as Christ our Lord and God said they were, His body and blood, which we receive and confess solely by faith in the Word of our Lord Jesus.

I don't know that this is in disagreement with Bulgakov or agreement; I suspect that Bulgakov's argument is perhaps a much more philosophically worded way of saying much the same.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm actually very pleased to read this.

It seems quite often I discover little ways in which Luther and Orthodoxy agree.

I could agree, I think, with both your quote and your assessment of it. I would only add if pressed that we pray

"changing them by Your Holy Spirit" ... but that's not adding much. God does the changing. We don't talk about what we can observe after. It is bread and wine, it is Body and blood. Changed by the Holy Spirit. A means by which God can grant grace to us. And the rest is Mystery, and we don't try to explain it.

 

[Major1]

Odd.
Wasn't it you that insisted that neither the Lutherans nor Anglicans believed in the real presence just a page or so ago?

Odd???

Wouldn't it be prudent to know what you believe in????

A real presence of Jesus in the wafer and wine. NO. They in fact say that what the RCC calls Transubstanciation to them is called a "Mystery".

Do you find that to be odd also?

 

[Major1]

Who told? That is an important question.

It would be the religious leaders of your faith would it not.

Honestly, why would I need to explain this to you?

 

[Major1]

If you had understanding of Orthodoxy, it might make more sense.

Many converts to Orthodoxy are among those most educated about what everyone believes.

But I spoke of my own parish. They are mostly cradle Orthodox. They were born in Greece, and emigrated to the US, bringing their faith with them.

You read about the Church at Thessolaniki in the Scriptures? And other Churches named after cities? That's how Christianity was. One Church, divided by locations, all with the same beliefs.

The Catholics schismed and created their own Church (though to be fair, they will probably claim all the other Churches split from them). The Protestant Reformation came about because if a desire to reform Catholicism. Many Protestant denominations have been the result, mostly of a continual desire to reform.

Meanwhile, the Church in Greece, remained. Kept doing what she had been doing, through the centuries. It is with a pure and simple heart that these people I speak of were born into the Church, grew up in the Church, learned the faith ... and assume that everyone else believes in God and follows Christ in the same way. Like the early Church, we consider division among believers to be A Very Bad Thing. It is in thinking GOOD of others that my fellow parishioners assume that all believe the same. They can't envision someone denying Paul as an Apostle, or denying the Holy Trinity, or embarking on many other errors great and small.

So it is not a bad thing. Yes, they are "saved". They are some of the most Christian people I know. But they don't obsess and pick over errors of others. It probably would never occur to most of them.

You said...........
"If you had understanding of Orthodoxy, it might make more sense."

How do you know what my understanding is?

Thanks for your time and may the Lord bless you!

 

[FenderTL5]

Odd???
A real presence of Jesus in the wafer and wine. NO. They in fact say that what the RCC calls Transubstanciation to them is called a "Mystery".

Do you find that to be odd also?

What I find odd was your comment after just being corrected. Unless I'm misunderstanding this reply, you still have it wrong. They (Lutherans and Anglicans) do indeed believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.