Immaculate Conception

[~Anastasia~]

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!

Well, I don't truly know what your understanding is. But you seemed to think we got our Eucharistic theology from Trent, which couldn't be further from the truth. And you seemed to think it was somehow deficient for cradle Orthodox from Greece to not be preoccupied with the beliefs of various Protestant denominations, for example.

If you read what I wrote, perhaps you see why it seemed you didn't have any understanding of what Orthodoxy was, from these two statements. If not, then perhaps you still don't understand?

I don't mean this as an insult. It's a very different thing to embrace ancient Christianity from a modern western mindset. But without an understanding of history, we probably can't communicate at all.

 

[FenderTL5]

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

Yes, but that wasn't the point being addressed. The point was the importance (or lack of) in knowing what other traditions believe.

 

[All4Christ]

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".

They definitely believe in the real presence. They believe that it is a mystery as well. Our fellow Lutheran posters professed it earlier, just as Luther taught (see his catechism here: https://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-14.html)

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar!

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God."

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et At sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence fear, and humility.

 

[~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.

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

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

It is important in fact.

Now, back to your initial question ...

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.

First of all, I'm not sure I can affirm what you say here. We don't say any of those things.

We say that it is truly His Body and His blood.

I'm not sure what Catholics mean by completely, or physically. And we don't say body, blood, soul, and divinity. So I'm not sure I can affirm any of that.

Who we attribute Tradition to is important.

Holy Tradition is not, by definition, something that the leaders of the Church at any time can establish.

Tradition (from the Greek παράδοσις - paradosis) is reflected in 2Thess 2 - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.(NASB). It is also rendered "traditions" in the KJV but many modern translations replace it with "teaching" ... which that is what "Tradition" means - teaching that has been passed down.

But as Orthodox, we attach another important definition. We "hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, at all times, and by all (Christians)". It is not possible for any Church leader to innovate and introduce a new "Tradition" as part of Holy Tradition.

The core of the faith was delivered to us by the Apostles through the Holy Spirit or by the word of Christ Himself.

This is actually one of our big disagreements with where Catholicism has gone. They see the seeds of each of their doctrines/dogmas that were later developed in the early Church, but we would disagree. And in some cases, can cite opposite direct statements to the contrary ... but I sincerely love my Catholic brothers and sisters and believe they are sincerely seeking God with their understanding, and I'm not looking to cause disagreement. But we believe nothing because of their teaching, and Trent (which you cited) was some 500 years after they finally and formally completely separated from us, though differences had been brewing for some centuries before that. That goes back to why it seemed to me that you didn't understand Orthodoxy.

Forgive me please, I'm happy to answer sincere questions, and participate in discussion. I'm interested in how others think and believe - I like to understand people, especially in mutual respect. But if what is wanted is argument or debate, I don't do that. I find it not spiritually beneficial. Even if one is right, the motive of only proving oneself right at the cost of love is a step backward spiritually.

 

[All4Christ]

Forgive me please, I'm happy to answer sincere questions, and participate in discussion. I'm interested in how others think and believe - I like to understand people, especially in mutual respect. But if what is wanted is argument or debate, I don't do that. I find it not spiritually beneficial. Even if one is right, the motive of only proving oneself right at the cost of love is a step backward spiritually.

So true; this is something I need to keep in mind. With that in mind, blessings to you all!

 

[Mountainmike]

You prove in your own writings how sola scriptura is insufficient, and is why you get the wrong end of the stick.

You ignore tradition, faith handed down by that apostles passed down from Jesus. Which was very much that the eucharist was real body and blood and to be treated as such. Many church fathers testify to this, and even romans considered christians cannibals because of it.

Take ignatius of antioch writing Before the turn of the first century, he and polycarp disciples of John the apostle and taught by him. Ignatius said...

" I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ"
Letter to the Romans, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

No amount of sophistry can make that spiritual!
Are you saying John the apostle got it wrong, or that the very first christians apostasized?

There WAS no new testament then, that only came later. There was only tradition, meaning handing down so "real flesh" was the faith.
You cannot interpret scripture correctly without tradition, and that is why reformationism has fractured into 10000 pieces and counting.

But even scripture says it if you know where to look:
because you ignore nuance in the ancient language - the word Jesus used for "eat my body" did not mean "consume "in your general spiritual sense it meant "gnaw" as indicates " flesh".

Thats why they all left him at the synagogue of Capernaum, because cannibalism and "gnaw my flesh" was an anathema to Jews. But instead of calling them back to correct what they correctly assumed he meant saying "It was only an allegory, this is what I really meant" not a bit of it...he just said to the rest and the apostles "will you go too? "
Explain why they all left, if what he said was only spiritual? Explain why he used the word eat as in gnaw if he meant "accept" or "absorb" in a spiritual sense. Your exegesis is completely inconsistent.

I can not agree with you that the Scriptures teach us that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus. You are welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe but IMO it is Catholic dogma you are following and not the Bible.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:63......
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are SPIRIT and are life,".

He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine. Matthew 26:26-29.....................

"And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,".

Consider that after Jesus said, "This is my blood," in Matt. 26:28, he said............... "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,"

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood? He called it wine.

Then please consider the fact that there is no indication in the Biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this.


The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

You said................
"What we do know, however, is that Scripture supports the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ. We affirm that wholeheartedly"..

Wonderful. However, have you thought this through thoroughly?????
Your interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, whether you will admit it, or not, this amounts to cannibalism. BUT, What does the Scripture say concerning this?

Leviticus 17:14.....................
"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," .

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the view your are advocating is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

 

[prodromos]

Lutherans and Methodists make up about 20% of Protestants and both believe in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist. If Anglicans are included then it comes to around 25%.

 

[Erose]

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

More derailing here, but in all honesty I'm at a loss for words here. I find it so amazing how people get things so wrong at times. The Bible does teach transubstantiation because Jesus takes up bread and says THIS IS MY BODY. That is a fundamental change that has occurred. The bread we eat is either common bread or Jesus Christ's flesh. Not both. That isn't complicated philosophy that is just common sense.

 

[amariselle]

These are the words Jesus spoke after feeding the 5,000.

26 "Jesus answered them and said, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.'"

28 "Then said they unto him, 'What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?'"

29 "Jesus answered and said unto them,
'This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.'

30 "They said therefore unto him, 'What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"

32 "Then Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.'"

34 "Then said they unto him, 'Lord, evermore give us this bread.'"

35 "And Jesus said unto them, 'I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.'"

41 "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, 'I am the bread which came down from heaven.'"

42 "And they said, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?'"

43 "Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, 'Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.'"

52 "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'"

53 "Then Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.'"

59 "These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, 'This is an hard saying; who can hear it?'"

61 "When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, 'Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.'" - John 6:26-63

Jesus was telling a parable here. He did not mean, of course, that He was or is literal bread or that, therefore, people should eat His literal flesh or drink His literal blood. (And indeed, none of His disciples ever did so). He was telling them that salvation is found in Him alone, and that salvation would be made possible by His coming sacrifice on the cross (where He offered His body and blood).

He is equating belief/faith in Him (by which people are saved and will not perish eternally, but have everlasting life) to the act of eating. This is a parable, teaching a spiritual truth and not meant to be taken literally. We also know this because the Jews were in fact forbidden to eat/drink blood, and cannibalism is abhorrent to God.

In telling this parable, as an example, he refers to the ancestors of those present who ate manna in the wilderness (a type of shadow of Christ) but still perished, saying He is the true bread from heaven. Those who ate the manna still perished, but those who "eat" (believe) in Him will never die. (They will have eternal life).

Unfortunately, many did not understand this parable and the spiritual truth it conveys at the time Jesus first taught it either, thus they actually thought He was advocating cannibalism. Even His disciples were put off and offended. (As would be anyone who thought Jesus was speaking literally).

Jesus also told a similar parable to the Samaritan woman at the well. (John 4) He quite often spoke in parables, as we know, using physical things to convey spiritual truth.

This is why we need to rightly divide the word of truth.

 

[~Anastasia~]

More derailing here, but in all honesty I'm at a loss for words here. I find it so amazing how people get things so wrong at times. The Bible does teach transubstantiation because Jesus takes up bread and says THIS IS MY BODY. That is a fundamental change that has occurred. The bread we eat is either common bread or Jesus Christ's flesh. Not both. That isn't complicated philosophy that is just common sense.

I think this is a case where Catholicism goes beyond Orthodoxy. I am open to correction, but I have heard priests answer "is it the body and blood or is it wine and bread?" The answer is simply "yes". Not either/or but both/and. We don't try to define how it has materially changed, what we'd find if we analyzed it, what it tastes like, etc. It simply, truly IS ... wine and bread, body and blood. And we believe.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So what does this discussion regarding the Real Presence have to do with the OP about the Immaculate Conception?

 

[amariselle]

So what does this discussion regarding the Real Presence have to do with the OP about the Immaculate Conception?

Good question...I suppose I should go back and address the OP.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So what does this discussion regarding the Real Presence have to do with the OP about the Immaculate Conception?

The conversation has drifted across various connected topics, after the OP was addressed. That often happens 20 pages in. It's not a bad thing, since those in the discussion can follow the context.

If the OP wants to keep it on topic, he has a right to ask, and deliberate derails would be a problem, but this one seems to have evolved naturally.

 

[amariselle]

Hello,

I don't come from a Catholic background, and would appreciate hearing some of the scriptures and church doctrine that outlines the immaculate conception. It's a topic of which I am fairly ignorant, and even the purpose of the doctrine (as I understand it) is probably off-base.

Thank you, and God bless

There are no Scriptures that even hint at the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This doctrine/tradition was brought in over time by the Catholic Church. There is no reason whatsoever to believe, according to Scripture, that Mary was sinless from conception, or for that matter, sinless at all. She herself acknowledges her need for a Saviour. (Luke 1:47) Only sinners need a Saviour. Also, the Bible is clear that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) No exception is ever made by anyone in Scripture (including Jesus Himself) for Mary.

Other unBiblical doctrines/traditions have been added to official Catholic Church beliefs regarding Mary over time as well, including Mary as "Co-Redemtrix" "Mediatrix/Dispenser of All Graces" the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" and the "Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven"

No Biblical foundation or basis for any of these is found anywhere in the Bible.

In fact, there were at least two instances, recorded in Scripture, where Jesus had the opportunity to clarify and confirm what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, if it were true. (Luke 11:27-28 & Matthew 12:46-50)

 

[bbbbbbb]

The conversation has drifted across various connected topics, after the OP was addressed. That often happens 20 pages in. It's not a bad thing, since those in the discussion can follow the context.

If the OP wants to keep it on topic, he has a right to ask, and deliberate derails would be a problem, but this one seems to have evolved naturally.

I agree. IMO the OP should close this thread and start a new one so that those who wish to discuss the Real Presence, or another side item, can easily identify the thread.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There are no Scriptures that even hint at the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This doctrine/tradition was brought in over time by the Catholic Church. There is no reason whatsoever to believe, according to Scripture, that Mary was sinless from conception, or for that matter, sinless at all. She herself acknowledges her need for a Saviour. (Luke 1:47) Only sinners need a Saviour. Also, the Bible is clear that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) No exception is ever made by anyone in Scripture (including Jesus Himself) for Mary.

Other unBiblical doctrines/traditions have been added to official Catholic Church beliefs regarding Mary over time as well, including Mary as "Co-Redemtrix" "Mediatrix/Dispenser of All Graces" the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" and the "Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven"

No Biblical foundation or basis for any of these is found anywhere in the Bible.

In fact, there were at least two instances, recorded in Scripture, where Jesus had the opportunity to clarify and confirm what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, if it were true. (Luke 11:27-28 & Matthew 12:46-50)

Thank you for the excellent post.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I agree. IMO the OP should close this thread and start a new one so that those who wish to discuss the Real Presence, or another side item, can easily identify the thread.

It's true that keeping topics tightly controlled make them easier to find.

Otoh, since I am often involved on closing threads, restarting topics, migrating threads, and such I can tell you ... it often interrupts the flow of conversation and can't be gotten back.

It's a call for the mods, really.

But as long as it's not bothering anybody and conversation is furthered, it seems harmless enough. And if every OT post were reported and removed (if we even had the manpower to enforce that) it would seriously stunt discussion. But as I said, it's up to the mods.

If you wish, you can open a thread? Or of course you are free to post on the IC as amariselle has done.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's true that keeping topics tightly controlled make them easier to find.

Otoh, since I am often involved on closing threads, restarting topics, migrating threads, and such I can tell you ... it often interrupts the flow of conversation and can't be gotten back.

It's a call for the mods, really.

But as long as it's not bothering anybody and conversation is furthered, it seems harmless enough. And if every OT post were reported and removed (if we even had the manpower to enforce that) it would seriously stunt discussion. But as I said, it's up to the mods.

If you wish, you can open a thread? Or of course you are free to post on the IC as amariselle has done.

Thank you. You have made some excellent points.

 

[Erose]

I think this is a case where Catholicism goes beyond Orthodoxy. I am open to correction, but I have heard priests answer "is it the body and blood or is it wine and bread?" The answer is simply "yes". Not either/or but both/and. We don't try to define how it has materially changed, what we'd find if we analyzed it, what it tastes like, etc. It simply, truly IS ... wine and bread, body and blood. And we believe.

So we are back then with Orthodoxy teaching consubstantiation. In all honesty Anastasia, Major 1 had a point. When you leave things open to interpretation, then quite frankly its open. It seems to me that in Orthodoxy, you can believe whatever you want, as long as you believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. This means that under the umbrella of Orthodoxy, Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, the Anglican, and Catholics are all right.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So we are back then with Orthodoxy teaching consubstantiation. In all honesty Anastasia, Major 1 had a point. When you leave things open to interpretation, then quite frankly its open. It seems to me that in Orthodoxy, you can believe whatever you want, as long as you believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. This means that under the umbrella of Orthodoxy, Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, the Anglican, and Catholics are all right.

Not quite.

There are areas where the Church gives us boundaries, and we are free to believe anything within those boundaries.

However, as far as the Eucharist is concerned, we are given certain things, and the rest is acknowledged as Mystery. That IS the belief. If we go into an attempt to define the Mystery, we have gone outside the boundary. We are not free to imagine whatever we think happens, and believe that we are right.

So no, we cannot subscribe to all of these other teachings. We have our teaching. And it is ... we know a, b, and c. The rest is a mystery. And we refer to them as "the Holy Mysteries".

I hope this makes sense?