- Nov 26, 2019
- 15,614
- 8,234
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My Church was founded by Yeshua Himself...some "guy" indeed! I believe what He said....almost 2000 years ago...I am not protestant. Your church was part of my Church until your church left in 1054 AD...
This is where Protestants are still thoroughly confused. Not because there is no work-based salvation but because there isn't. Now, for argument's sake, let me throw out the other side of the misunderstanding (from many on our side). If you say grace alone by faith alone, any Catholic would agree.Works salvation is not narrow at all,
This is a big issue that ended up spitting the original Apostolic CHurches into the Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian, and Roman Churches. The Roman Church believes that God continues to make revelation to his church. For example slavery.....It was revealed to the Church that slavery was no longer a valid source of employment so it was banned by The Church. The tings you disagree on are details and semantics.But imo anyone that veers off of that foundation and doesn't uphold the teachings and traditions that they brought forth is way off course of what we would call the " original true church" today. They might have had good intentions and held to those at first but again, if you steer from that....
That goes for all.
I believe it's frowned upon. They told me in my church not to expect to get it unless it's an emergency. Like the examples you gave, or I thought of being in a hospital in Greece etc.but I’ve never heard of an Eastern Orthodox parish giving Roman Catholics communion, but it could happen in the event of a war or major disaster,
The homosexuality issue is a bone of contention for RCC conservatives as well. However, if I'm not mistaken, Pope Francis hasn't said it is no longer a sin but said in a nutshell that The Church is a sanctuary for all sinners. As a progressive (like Christ), I personally believe there is no better place for a sinner in the middle of the Church. I think also it speaks to the question. What is special about homosexuality amongst other sins like cohabitation, gambling, drunkenness, usuery, theft, etc? People don't seem to be outraged by their banker friends charging overwhelming interest or premarital sex. Not saying they support it but they are not "hunted down" like homosexuals. I don't think it's that homosexuality is not a sin but that it is no more of a sin than any other.I myself don’t object to the Assyrian policy, but given recent disturbing incidents like Fiducia Supplicans, if the Roman Church should capitulate on homosexuality, which it nearly did last year (only the clarification issued by Pope Francis stopped it, and there was an entirely inappropriate blessing of a sexually immoral relationship by a diocesan bishop in Kentucky), I would join with the Athonite and Georgian monks who advocate for ecumenical dialogue with your denomination to be terminated. But I would be very sad if that happened, since my hope had been to see the Great Schism reversed before 2054.
I apologize for my assumption. I think the biggest fundamental issue that broke our CHurches apart is that one believes the revelation is made and complete and there need be no change in the future and the other believes that God continues to make revelation known to his CHurch. Above, I gave the example of slavery. How would it be for us to say we are God's Church yes still support the rights of one human to own another and their family in perpetuity. It's not often that changes are made in doctrine but with a global RCC conscientious, of the Bishops of the Global Roman Church, Changes can be made in order to make sure we are setting people free, both from their sins and their earthly masters. That is why there is such a huge culture of teaching and charity. So we make God's presence felt in the world always. If someone believes that nothing in the CHurch can ever change, there is a valid reason for that too.My Church was founded by Yeshua Himself...some "guy" indeed! I believe what He said....almost 2000 years ago...I am not protestant. Your church was part of my Church until your church left in 1054 AD...
Of course that is a valid question to ask. Let me ask this...Wasn't one of the biggest changes from Mosaic law to the law of Christ that we preach forgiveness instead of stoning for example? Or, like I said above, the support of slavery and the freeing of the slaves? Part of deciding if something is to change is to determine if philosophy was informed more by the times they lived in or Jesus's message of setting the captives free and offering free salvation to anyone who repents of their sins and accepts the Cross offering sanctuary to anyone who seeks it.This goes for many denominations and churches. (Protestant, CC, etc) One can't throw out anything or add anything upon the foundation and teachings they brought forward. If there's a man made tradition that wasn't part of that original teaching than we have to ask ourselves has that church veered off course of the original church that was founded by the apostles? Christ has foretold us all things. Nothing to be taken away or added.
That claim is probably pushing the credibility envelope well out of shapeYour church actually adopted RCC theology that states we are saved by grace through faith. That was not thought up by any Protestant. It was adopted by them like 95% of all Protestant doctrine.
This is where Protestants get confused. The Church believes we are saved by grace through faith as you also believe, which was handed to your denomination by The Apostolic Church. If you look deeper into it you will learn that the 7 Sacraments are CONFIRMATION of our faith, not CAUSE. The thing that happened is when your varying churches adopted Catholic doctrine (as it was the only Christian doctrine in existence at the time, the non-Apostolic, random "scholars" and self-proclaimed "theologians" decided that they would keep the Sacraments that they liked and they would chuck out the ones they didn't like. They streamlined it to give us the new sort of "fast food" churches. That is why there are over 1,000 different franchises like there are 100,000 different places to get fast-food. If you don't like how one church cooks their fries, try another until they are serving what you want. Sort of like BK "have it your way." You don't like a teaching? Drop it. You want to add extra mayo? Find a place where they will slap it on. What people don't like is taking heed of the teachings of the original high class restaurant. Too expensive and they aren't serving what I like.That claim is probably pushing the credibility envelope well out of shape
Let's agree that the terms are understood differently, for example the "transubstantiated host" being the delivery of
Grace in RCC positions. Nothing even close to Protestantism's of any kind
Did you mean to say conveyance, not confirmation? Let's not forget the host does contain "attributes"CONFIRMATION of our faith, not CAUSE
There are a few places where neither word is used. Just as an exchange of ideas, and more insight on how and why we possibly agree/disagree. The most important part is how & why.Did you mean to say conveyance, not confirmation? Let's not forget the host does contain "attributes"
I do appreciate the subtleties language as much as anyone
You are welcome to the exchange. Transubstantiation is quite far down on my list of concerns about RCC doctrinal positions.There are a few places where neither word is used. Just as an exchange of ideas, and more insight on how and why we possibly agree/disagree. The most important part is how & why.
I'm not going to hunt through the Bible verse for verse all over the place. I will just post a passage and if you are willing alalyze it, whatever that means to you. I would describe it like teach me how this is to be interpreted and I'll do the same. If you want me to go first, just drop a note.
Just wanted to add that I'm not here to test you in any way. The way I see it is that neither one of us has convinced tho other. I honestly would like correction if I do not understand how to apply this knowledge
If not, God Bless you, I feel all the better for our discussion..
I hope I didn't imply that any Protestant sect believes in Transanstiation. Luthersn believes in CONsubstantion meaning the bread and wine has the Real Presence of Christ in them (as in Co-substiantion) but they do not transform into the physical body and blood of Christ. All others (besides Anglican and Church of England), believe that communion is a symbol but he is not in there from my limited understanding.You are welcome to the exchange. Transubstantiation is quite far down on my list of concerns about RCC doctrinal positions.
I do object to equating any Protestant group to transubstantiation, as that never happened. Happy to quote Luther if needed
When Jesus spoke you are "hearing" his bread. When we read His Words we are reading/hearing his bread, His "seed." That piece of bread has to be symbolic just as the tree in the Garden of Eden that granted eternal life in it's fruit was symbolic. It contains nothing but organic material just as any tree in the Garden would be organic material.Really, I wanted to get more info what we seem to differ in related to works are not needed to have faith and works as the measure of faith. I would like to hear (read) your commentary on this passage:
1 Cor 11:23-29When Jesus spoke you are "hearing" his bread. When we read His Words we are reading/hearing his bread, His "seed." That piece of bread has to be symbolic just as the tree in the Garden of Eden that granted eternal life in it's fruit was symbolic. It contains nothing but organic material just as any tree in the Garden would be organic material.
These have to connect "symbolically" to Jesus' Statements, not that Jesus Himself is a literal piece of bread or a literal tree of life.
The bread He gave was His Own sinless flesh, to physical death, on a cross
How anyone can bake some stuff in an oven and grant that some special powers is more than a tad strange to me
And before we jump into the faith ship and sail away into wishes were horses land, faith works through love, Gal. 5:6. I don't have to use "faith" or have a priest use faith to turn a piece of bread into a transubstantiated piece of Jesus.
Love comes from God. We just happen to get a piece of the action from Him, to break, and to share. It doesn't seem to be that complicated
A "remembrance" or "memory of what transpired" is not the same as an actual body of Christ and doesn't have to be
I learned about bread immediately after taking the host many years ago, and being hit by an evil thought as I was leaving the altar.1 Cor 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Hear from early Christians:
"They [i.e. the Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.
(Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)" St. Ignatius Antioch c. 110 A.D.
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS.:
(First Apology, 66) Saint Justin Martyr c. 100-165 A.D.
First of all, thank you for going through this little exercise with me. I believe I will learn a lot.These have to connect "symbolically" to Jesus' Statements, not that Jesus Himself is a literal piece of bread or a literal tree of life.
I see how that is deemed true, but did this statement come from the Bible or a Reformer?The bread He gave was His Own sinless flesh, to physical death, on a cross
I answered before but in other words, as the bread and wine was nothing special before Jesus blessed it and namedit his flesh and blood, In Mass the Preist leads and we confirm the blessing that changes those plain wafers and church with into body and blood. We also repeat those two specific verses in Matthew 26.How anyone can bake some stuff in an oven and grant that some special powers is more than a tad strange to meAnd before we jump into the faith ship and sail away into wishes were horses land, faith works through love, Gal. 5:6. I don't have to use "faith" or have a priest use faith to turn a piece of bread into a transubstantiated piece of Jesus.
This is the most compelling argument I have seen considering the littoral and symbolic bread and blood. I acknowledge that. There is just still something that doesn't sit right with me.......A no point still, has he said anything like "this is a symbol of my body and blood" or "the is the symbol of anything. He said it IS his body and it IS his blood. Doing it in remembrance of him never changed or negated the facts of what Jesu said. Like I said, it is a manmade interpretation of the text which I believe is one of the tings the Reformers were to have eliminated. My thinking was that the Reformers believe that we should believe exactly says and not change it to our own way of thinking. That does not seem to be the case on this one particular.A "remembrance" or "memory of what transpired" is not the same as an actual body of Christ and doesn't have to be
I think I went past this passage and it is important to address. The logic of this interpretation is sound. Then the question still becomes, "Does the Bible actually say this or is it a Reformed interpretation of Scripture?" The reason I ask is because 9/10 Reformers I have exanges with are of the mind that if it's not specifically stated in the Bible, it is man's interpretation of what is actually written. The Church that I attend was built on both oral tradition and Holy Scripture. From my understanding, the Reformed church believes that all truth comes from the written word and anything else is a tradition of men. I concede that is true however from other replies in our exchange, I have seen where even the Reformed church has chosen tradition over the written word and any tradition passed down by men is invalid. We don't see that in the Reformed interpretation of the Last Supper. The logic is very sound. It must mean a symbol of Christ's body and blood, but that is not what the Bible says is it?When Jesus spoke you are "hearing" his bread. When we read His Words we are reading/hearing his bread, His "seed." That piece of bread has to be symbolic just as the tree in the Garden of Eden that granted eternal life in it's fruit was symbolic. It contains nothing but organic material just as any tree in the Garden would be organic material.
iirc Jesus specifically calls or terms said bread a remembrance i.e. "do this in remembrance of me", again symbolic or allegory or parable. IF for example we wanted to get very literal we could say it was only that one piece of bread that Jesus held, that being "this bread." Not countless billions of subsequent loaves. Jesus called Himself a seed as well. Doesn't mean He was a literal seed i.e. the seed is the Word.The logic is very sound. It must mean a symbol of Christ's body and blood, but that is not what the Bible says is it?
The Koine Greek word "anamnesis" means a lot more than a remembrance or a memory, it has connotations of making the past present.iirc Jesus specifically calls or terms said bread a remembrance i.e. "do this in remembrance of me", again symbolic or allegory or parable. IF for example we wanted to get very literal we could say it was only that one piece of bread that Jesus held, that being "this bread." Not countless billions of subsequent loaves. Jesus called Himself a seed as well. Doesn't mean He was a literal seed i.e. the seed is the Word.
His Word is bread, seed, light, life, a lamp, a candle, love and much much more being alive and active. There are many descriptives
There is also Word that is meant to make sin utterly sinful, Romans 7:13 and Word that gives strength to sin, 1 Cor.15:56
And there are curse Words and damnation Words and tribulation Words and wrath Words and vengeance Words and final Judgment Words
And there is the power of the Word that upholds all things
Lotta action there, with Word. In O.T. studies all kinds of interesting correlations can be unearthed for all of these terms that lend many layers to all of it. Quite fun, really. Pity to get locked and loaded on these subjects into just a specific avenue, as if God has to jump to our reading comprehension skills
The most blatantly obvious thing about the entirety of Jesus' statements is that it's an allegoryThe Koine Greek word "anamnesis" means a lot more than a remembrance or a memory, it has connotations of making the past present.
John 6:53-56 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. him. RSVCE
And what is Jesus telling us when He says "do this?"
I can see the logic in jumping from "remembrance" to "symbolic." Would you be willing to go so far as to consider "this is my body" meaning "this is my body?" is also logical? I can see the argument for washing it down to a symbol because we keep doing it ritualistically.iirc Jesus specifically calls or terms said bread a remembrance i.e. "do this in remembrance of me", again symbolic or allegory or parable. IF for example we wanted to get very literal we could say it was only that one piece of bread that Jesus held, that being "this bread." Not countless billions of subsequent loaves. Jesus called Himself a seed as well. Doesn't mean He was a literal seed i.e. the seed is the Word.
His Word is bread, seed, light, life, a lamp, a candle, love and much much more being alive and active. There are many descriptives
There is also Word that is meant to make sin utterly sinful, Romans 7:13 and Word that gives strength to sin, 1 Cor.15:56
And there are curse Words and damnation Words and tribulation Words and wrath Words and vengeance Words and final Judgment Words
And there is the power of the Word that upholds all things
Lotta action there, with Word. In O.T. studies all kinds of interesting correlations can be unearthed for all of these terms that lend many layers to all of it. Quite fun, really. Pity to get locked and loaded on these subjects into just a specific avenue, as if God has to jump to our reading comprehension skills
Not much difference in those sights."remembrance" to "symbolic."
If Jesus has meant that the bread was now His body, and He was still bodily with His disciples, He must have had two bodies.I can see the logic in jumping from "remembrance" to "symbolic." Would you be willing to go so far as to consider "this is my body" meaning "this is my body?" is also logical? I can see the argument for washing it down to a symbol because we keep doing it ritualistically.
I don't believe in "incarnate" bread. That supposedly special prayed over bread didn't die for me, Jesus didas we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?