Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[The Liturgist]

This is just right wing political speak; not even remotely Christian in content.

Respectfully, it is not; if you take a look at the United Church of Christ (which has directly funded pro-abortion campaigns), the United Church of Canada, or for a more extreme example, the Remonstrant Church in the Netherlands and Germany, which was founded by Arminius, and which is the most liberal non-Unitarian Christian denomination in the world, the latter in recent years decided that belief in the Trinity and so on was unimportant, and now encourages new members to compose their own creeds (!). By the way composing any new creed or modifying the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is a violation of the canons of the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, and is thus prohibited in the Oriental Orthodox communion and all Chalcedonian churches which still care about the canons of the ecumenical councils.

The laissez-faire approach to doctrine we see above, and to an even more extreme extent in the now explicitly post-Christian Unitarian Universalist Association (and the British Unitarians, who are more or less in lockstep with the UUA), which has only a few congregations left which still identify explicitly as Christian*, was championed by the Episcopalian bishop James Pike, who was acquitted by a heresy trial despite having made remarks that deprecated the importance of doctrines like the Trinity, a famous quote attributed to him being “We need fewer beliefs and more belief.”

Interestingly, Bishop Pike, who if I recall resigned or retired in the early 1970s, was also a close personal friend of the science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, whose later work demonstrates a fascination with Gnostic Christianity, and whose last novel, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, is about the transmigration, or reincarnation, of the soul of a character based on Bishop Pike (who sadly had recently died seeking aid when his vehicle broke down in the deserts of Israel, while he was searching for historical evidence of Jesus Christ; fortunately his wife, who remained in the car, was rescued and survived).


*such as King’s Chapel in Boston, which infamously uses a modified version of the 1662 BCP with all references to the Trinity removed (this had been an Anglican church, but after July 4th and the C of E cutting off episcopal support for churches in North America, rather than joining the Protestant Episcopal Church or the Methodist Episcopal Church, they decided to adopt a neutral position on the Trinity due to Unitarianism becoming a huge fad in formerly Puritan Boston in the 1770s-1800s).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Respectfully, it is not

Respectfully it is right wing political speak - "Woke", "politically correct", these are catch calls to the political right, neither word has any place in a Christian discussion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Take a moment to reflect upon post #150

And consider this too.
Matthew 13:24-30 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.As Jesus said of himself
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.Matthew 9:13
This is what the Church is called to do. And judgement may come, as you indicated, when the last day arrives or when a person's actions bring scandal or harm to others.

I read your posts and all I see is extreme left wing, social Marxism with a hint of Christian intent that is bordering on universalism; so I guess we are even.

So, you see the gospel as Marxism, and as extreme left wing, and only a hint of Christian intent? Matthew 13:24-30; 9:13 coupled to a final comment, "This is what the Church is called to do. And judgement may come, as you indicated, when the last day arrives or when a person's actions bring scandal or harm to others."?

Are you sure you read my posts? I challenge you to point to the alleged Marxism. I am no Marxist, your comment is quite insulting.

 

[Markie Boy]

The Gospel challenges everyone. But the left has gone so far over the cliff, I won't try to reconcile them - only God can. But they must repent, and it should look like it.

And His Kingdom is not something you can point at and say "there it is" - according to Jesus.

 

[dzheremi]

Our holy master and father St. Paul the Apostle has warned the Church at Corinth, and through the same epistle all of us in turn, that it is entirely within the bounds of our religion that the Church judge those who claim to be within her and yet do not behave accordingly. I am not here to argue that we ought to therefore have a 'verse duel' or whatever, but I say that knowing in advance why such an approach to our religion is so popular among the Protestant majority of the West (with apologies to those Protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans who do not behave according to this stereotype): the alternative to every man or woman choosing for themselves what seems to be the case from their own idiosyncratic reading of the Biblical text is that we have to look at what the Church has actually done throughout its life to deal with such situations and people.

The very fact that we can even do that (and we can) ought to be enough to tell anyone who would like a more laissez-faire approach to matters of doctrine that they are innovating to no good end by reimagining our faith as one with no real borders to it. From the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem c. AD 50 to the synods of today, the Church has never been without the power and right to judge certain beliefs and practices as being outside the Christian fold, and hence to pass judgment upon those who endorse or practice them. That's what was behind the welcoming of the Gentiles, as well as the 'unwelcoming' of Marcion, Arius, Nestorius, etc., down to modern day heretics like Vassula Ryden (to purposely choose a figure who everyone seems to be united in not accepting, and with very good reason). If no one is fit to say "No, this is beyond what is acceptable", then there is no real point in maintaining the faith, and many of our Lord's precious and holy words are made into polite but often inscrutable suggestions, rather than the commands of God that they truly are.

(Notice how I got through all that without using the 'L' or 'R' words? Stop trying to reduce our religion to modern American partisan politics. Bethlehem is not a city in Florida or California. Yes, I checked.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

judge those who claim to be within her and yet do not behave accordingly.

"behave" is quite different from "think" or "fail to think" in some specific way demanded by some group who happen to have a building that they call a church. Check my posts with some care. Not a word is said against discipline applied to sinful actions. And to make one matter clear, a man who says "abortion is okay" has never had an abortion himself, and unless he has procured an abortion for someone he has not sinned except in word and thought, is such a man to be excluded from the Church for thinking and saying the wrong thing? Should not such a person be encouraged to follow the teaching of Christ with gentleness and patience? I think that the Lord said "I want mercy and not sacrifice" just before he added "I did not come to judge the world but to save it". There is a distinction between thought/word and deed. Matthew 25 teaches that the judgement is on the basis of deeds not on thoughts and words alone. Though words are significant and can cause condemnation, it is the work of the Church on earth to preach repentance and faith and to teach the right way to live, but that cannot be done when sinners are excluded because Christ came to call sinners and not the perfect to repentance.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So, you see the gospel as Marxism, and as extreme left wing, and only a hint of Christian intent? Matthew 13:24-30; 9:13 coupled to a final comment, "This is what the Church is called to do. And judgement may come, as you indicated, when the last day arrives or when a person's actions bring scandal or harm to others."?

Are you sure you read my posts? I challenge you to point to the alleged Marxism. I am no Marxist, your comment is quite insulting.

You read what you want from my posts so it does not surprise me that you read what you want from scripture as well. It seems that everyone else who replied understood the points I was making; their replies are sufficient.

Happy Easter.

 

[Markie Boy]

To get a good breakdown, I like the Didache. It states there are Two Ways - one of life, one of death. It's deals with morality that we can all agree on, or not. It's pretty simple and clear.

Christianity is not about politics, agree. But our faith should form all we do, and support.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It seems that everyone else who replied understood the points I was making

No great wonder there, the USA Christian community is to completely politicised, nowadays that it is a rare Christian who reads the scriptures without the filter of UDSA party politics firmly in place. Yet not a word in any of my posts is Marxist. I wonder if you can define Marxism? I would be interested to see you do so and then point to the Marxist content in my posts. Thus far you've just accused and referred to the crowd, not to anything I've written. Try to do what I ask and see how you go.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Christianity is not about politics, agree. But our faith should form all we do, and support.

And so it should form our whole way of life and our whole way of thinking. This world's politics is not aimed at serving God, and even if some enter politics with the hope of making changes that are godly, it is hard to see much success in their efforts. That is not to say that none do these things and that no success comes, yet on the whole the world moves in a different direction from the direction that God calls humanity towards.

I wrote to you with the intention of drawing attention to the ease with which exclusivism can defeat the gospel and still seem 'righteous'. Looking for moral people to fill the pews is very tempting, yet Christ came to call sinners to repentance, we should do the same.

 

[dzheremi]

"behave" is quite different from "think" or "fail to think" in some specific way

Is our behavior not supposed to be in accordance with our beliefs?

demanded by some group who happen to have a building that they call a church. Check my posts with some care.

Same to you. I wrote about "the Church", not "a building they call a church." Please keep in mind that the Holy Scriptures call the Church "the pillar and ground of the Truth", "the Israel of God", and many other exalted and true things that show us how high the ecclesiology of the early Church is.

Not a word is said against discipline applied to sinful actions. And to make one matter clear, a man who says "abortion is okay" has never had an abortion himself, and unless he has procured an abortion for someone he has not sinned except in word and thought, is such a man to be excluded from the Church for thinking and saying the wrong thing?

Self-excluded, yes. The Church does nothing outside of confirming or refuting what is preached and done by those who claim to be within her, depending on the specifics of what they teach and believe. Thus Arius, Nestorius, and so on are out, and our holy fathers St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Gregory, and so on are in. Don't like it? Neither does the Church, so stop believing and practicing wrongly.

Should not such a person be encouraged to follow the teaching of Christ with gentleness and patience?

They are. Everyone is encouraged to embrace orthodoxy every single day, and to refuse heresy no matter how attractive or popular it may be.

I think that the Lord said "I want mercy and not sacrifice" just before he added "I did not come to judge the world but to save it".

None of which denies Him His just judgment, nor the ability to rightly handle the truth, which He shows is with His Apostles when He tells them that any sin they absolve is thereby absolved, and any sin they retain is thereby retained. So obviously He saw fit that those who are chosen to be overseers of His flock be endowed to judge accordingly. How else do think that St. Paul can even write what he wrote to the Corinthians?

There is a distinction between thought/word and deed. Matthew 25 teaches that the judgement is on the basis of deeds not on thoughts and words alone. Though words are significant and can cause condemnation, it is the work of the Church on earth to preach repentance and faith and to teach the right way to live, but that cannot be done when sinners are excluded because Christ came to call sinners and not the perfect to repentance.

You're preaching to the choir here, my friend. The question is not the exclusion of sinners (read the text of the Coptic Orthodox liturgy sometime, or the liturgy of any other traditional Church; I'm fairly certain we all have proclamations from the celebrant of the day as to his own sinfulness and unworthiness, and we too say the same, e.g., praying corporally that we be judged "according to Your mercies, O Lord, and not according to our sins"), but the absolute exclusion of anything that dilutes or perverts the faith that is once and for all delivered to the saints.

To paraphrase a word of HH Pope Shenouda III of thrice-blessed memory, we may be very kind and gentle with the poor, but if something touches the doctrine or the faith, it is another matter. Read: Ideas are not people, hence we are not to confuse showing mercy to the needy or the errant -- as we may all be, from time to time -- with showing mercy to ideas and practices that, if embraced, are absolutely ruinous to the faith of the people.

This is the true faith of God, established before all time and for all time, not a western-style 'free market of ideas.' Frankly, if your idea sucks and is theological poison, you're not free to spread it according to basically any church that still cares about being an actual Christian church. If that does not describe your experience of the Christian religion, it's not because everyone else is a fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud who refuses to listen to Jesus about being merciful. It's because you're being ripped off, frankly. You're being spiritually abused, because those who ought to be your guides along the narrow road are pointing you in the wrong direction in the name of this or that social value that does not amount to a hill of beans next to our Lord, God, and Savior's victory over sin and death (<--- Christianity).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You're preaching to the choir here, my friend. The question is not the exclusion of sinners

The person to whom I first replied was considering exclusion of "wishy washy liberals" which the post seemed to equate to unbelievers. I warned against that, since the gospel is intended for unbelievers and also one man's wishy-washy-liberal is another's faithful-believer. And for making that observation I was called a Marxist, a leftist extremist. Which was an excellent example of right wing politics dominating one's theology, on top of that "woke" and "political correctness" was tossed at me as an accusation too.

One is never too surprised by the power of incorrect inference to make a person write absurd things in a post.

 

[dzheremi]

one man's wishy-washy-liberal is another's faithful-believer.

I really don't think this is the case, though. The entire point of my post is that since there are standards (and it is right that there are), we cannot treat things like it's all six of one, half a dozen of another. Whether it's a 'wishy washy liberal' who wants to turn Jesus into a proto-Che Guevara or a 'right-winger whose politics dominate their theology', there is still the standard to which everyone is beholden.

 

[Markie Boy]

That is my perspective - there are standards. If one reads the Didache as the teaching of the early church - there are very clear standards. Could we agree on that?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I really don't think this is the case, though. The entire point of my post is that since there are standards (and it is right that there are), we cannot treat things like it's all six of one, half a dozen of another. Whether it's a 'wishy washy liberal' who wants to turn Jesus into a proto-Che Guevara or a 'right-winger whose politics dominate their theology', there is still the standard to which everyone is beholden.

Have you considered that for many in those little buildings called churches a Catholic is a pagan and the Orthodox are some sort of Catholic-pagan? It is not merely wishy-washy-liberals who are excluded, you and I are likely to be among the excluded too.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is my perspective - there are standards. If one reads the Didache as the teaching of the early church - there are very clear standards. Could we agree on that?

Well then, is the Holy Eucharist cannibalism? Or do you accept that the bread and the wine are in truth and reality the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord, Jesus Christ?

 

[dzheremi]

Have you considered that for many in those little buildings called churches a Catholic is a pagan and the Orthodox are some sort of Catholic-pagan? It is not merely wishy-washy-liberals who are excluded, you and I are likely to be among the excluded too.

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it, please?

If your point is that other people disagree with Orthodoxy, well yeah. Of course they do. Again, I don't see how this changes what the standard is.

There was a time, of course, when much of the Roman Christian world was being carried away by Arianism. It was still wrong as a belief for all that time, and I think most Christians and most individual churches are happy that we have the luminaries that we do in the form of men like HH St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and so on to remind us what being 'contra mundum' is all about, as clearly that struggle has not ended just because the heresy of today's world is endless and pointless diversity for its own sake, rather than a specific heresy as it was back then.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it, please?

People in small groups, such as Jack Chick's group, label Catholics and Orthodox people as pagans. Others in groups of various sizes use more mild language yet send missionaries to Catholic and Orthodox lands to convert Catholic and Orthodox Christians to their idea of Christianity, because at heart they are convinced that neither Catholics nor Orthodox people are Christians.

If your point is that other people disagree with Orthodoxy, well yeah. Of course they do. Again, I don't see how this changes what the standard is.

Your standard remains steady, others have their own standards and among them are the standards that reject Orthodoxy as something essentially non-Christian and it is the same, or similar, "others" who also label people "wishy washy liberals" even when the people so labelled are not especially "liberal". And then there are the one-issue "others" who pick some touch-stone issue and decide one is not a Christian if one doesn't agree with them on it. So there isn't really an agreed standard among professing Christians.

There was a time, of course, when much of the Roman Christian world was being carried away by Arianism.

Are you thinking of the Germanic tribes that were Arians? You ought to know that they were never Catholic, and they learned their Arianism from the Byzantines - the Byzantines had long periods where Arians Patriarchs occupied the bishop's seat in Constantinople.

 

[The Liturgist]

Respectfully it is right wing political speak - "Woke", "politically correct", these are catch calls to the political right, neither word has any place in a Christian discussion.

The term “woke“ was used by the left and before them, by certain segments of the African American political community in reaction to the tragic racism that persisted into the 1960s, albeit the specific movements who coined the term woke I regard as less impressive than those following the ideology of the venerable Dr. Martin Luther King, who by virtue of being a slain clergyman killed for promoting Christian values is in my opinion a Protestant Saint, specifically a Heiromartyr.

As for whether or not political terminology is appropriate in Christian theological discussions, liberal theology and Liberal Christianity and conservative theology and Conservative Christianity exist, and there are forums for both groups on CF.com, and a forum for moderates, and different people have accused me of being liberal and conservative, so naturally I have participated in all three forums and have friends from all three camps. There are also other politically charged theological movements in Christianity, such as Liberation Theology, Queer Theology, Womanist Theology and Dominionism, among others.

This I would argue is because Holy Scripture contains moral instructions, but some people emphasize some of these instructions over others due to eisegesis, and furthermore theology is involved in a continual dialogue with the philosophy of the era in which it exists, which is why we have Modernist, Postmodernist and Deconstructionist philosophy, and which is also why after centuries of relying chiefly on a narrow selection of Plato, after initially mainly using Aristotle before dropping him rather swiftly in the early third century due to a perceived association with Gnosticism (which I don’t get, since Platonic philosopjy strikes me as just as closely related, and Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism were “kissing cousins” to use a somewhat vulgar aphorism to refer to a pair of extremely vulgar religious errors), the Scholastics picked up Aristotle again after Latin translations of Arabic translations made by Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian monks became available, along with translations of commentaries by the likes Averroes, and within a century or so of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas we also had St. Gregory Palamas use Aristotle extensively in his writings in defense of the Hesychast movement.

In the modern political concept, both conservative and liberal Christianity can be seen emerging in the 16th century with the High Church movement in the C of E and the Cavalier faction in the English Civil War vs. the Low Church movement, Puritans and thus the Roundhead faction in the same war, but what really caused things to develop into their current form was the influence of the Enlightenment on the Protestant churches, where in particular, in the US, formerly Puritan and Calvinist Congregational churches became Unitarian in the late 18th century.

 

[The Liturgist]

Are you thinking of the Germanic tribes that were Arians? You ought to know that they were never Catholic, and their learned their Arianism from the Byzantines - the Byzantines had long periods where Arians Patriarchs occupied the bishop's seat in Constantinople.

While it is true that the autocephalous church of Old Rome never had an Arian forced upon it, unlike the autocephalous churches of Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria, it is also the case that Arianism remained a problem in the Western Empire, particularly in Spain and North Africa, but also in Sicily and various other places, which is why St. Isidore of Seville became such an important figure. And we are not talking about the Visigoths who later migrated to North Africa and converted to Islam, and killed off the Christians.

The only autocephalous churches not to experience the imposition of Arian clergy were those of Cyprus, home of the great heresiologist St. Epiphanius, (which was Imperial territory but remote, and no one cared), the Church of the East in Malankara, Seleucia-Cstesiphon, Nisibis and Edessa, and thus outside the Imperial frontier, and likewise the churches of Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia, the latter being autonomous but notoriously difficult for Alexandria to govern, to the extent that I would argue that when the Ethiopian church finally was granted autocephaly in the 20th century, while it was more than a formality, to be sure, literally nothing has changed as a result, other than the emergence of a dispute over territorial divisions between the Copts and Ethiopians at the Holy Sepulchre.