Is all this parsing of words what Jesus meant we'd have to do when He said that "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth"? Is the precise definition of the Son a requirement to know what Jesus meant when He said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life"?
Heh...the debate can get overwhelming and ridiculous, can't it? I'm not one to say. I believe that what Christianity has said is necessary for understanding how the Way, Truth and the Life comes into our life is through the God made man, and debating how this happens can either be a meaningless academic exercise or a pastoral work of utmost importance to protect against ramifications down the road that may appear due to a faulty christology.
It's true that, on the level of the parish in rural Ethiopia or Ukraine, the
iota that separates the two communities probably goes unnoticed by all save the priests for the entire lives of most parishioners. Yet, as you said, it's the pastors' job and calling--along with the laity who have been given the gift to engage at this level--to ensure that the confession of the faithful remains as, well, as faithful to that Incarnation as possible. I believe both communions are absolutely sincere in trying to do this, and I believe both are meaning the same thing, but we are simply and justifiably concerned with possible room for misinterpretation in the other communion, and we're erring on the side of caution. I'd rather we do this than act rashly out of a desire for unity when real objections exist. I imagine you feel the same way, too, in spite of your understandable frustration. Forgive me, please, if I've read you wrong...
Are these precise formulations of the nature of the Godhead and the Son of God - and the nature of what is NOT the Godhead or the Son of God - the rightful and culminative (new wordform I made up) expressions of the religion of Israel and the worship of YHWH?
I believe so, yes. The full revelation of YHWH through His Son has proven to be a much greater revelation than anything Israel has ever seen before. So we as the continuation of the OT Israel were given the charge, by God's grace, to examine the revelation. This is what we came up with, (hopefully) by God's grace.
I find myself more and more perplexed by both the church and by Christ. Who is He and what did He say and what did He mean? Matthew, Mark and Luke clearly place the Last Supper as a Passover meal. John clearly places it as NOT a Passover meal. The church is divided on this, because the Gospels are divided on this.
The gospels tell a different story regarding this--an additional conundrum is that St. Luke's gospel puts the "won't drink of the fruit of the vine" statement
before Christ takes the cup and says, "This is my blood," while St. Matthew puts the statement
after Christ offers the cup...so is what's in the cup the "fruit of the vine" or not?
Obviously, the Scriptures were not looked over beforehand to ensure a perfectly harmonious retelling of the story, but really, KATH, that's OK. One could reasonably conclude that, if the immediate successors of the apostles were
also divided on what exactly happened in that Cup
, then we'd have no real hope of knowing for sure. Yet this is not the case; we know all apostolic fathers saw those gifts as the very body and blood of Christ and nothing less. This was the faith decided on by
all Christians since the beginning. One need not fret about it any more...
As I said, it seems to me that some of the problems are inherent in the Scriptures themselves. What I mean by that is ... the foods at the Passover were clearly representative and memorialist.
In the sense that they pointed backwards to the Israelites' exodus, yes, you're right. But I know that the fathers of Jewish homes did not then take the bread and call it their body, or the cup and call it their blood. This was truly something unique and new added to the meal...
We have scholars on both sides of the issue, all versed in the patristic literature and church traditions, and they can't achieve a consensus. No big deal, except it impacts the central rite of the church.
Careful...some don't even think it's all that "central."
Seriously, though, I get you...but these experts who are well-versed in the patristic writings have either to accept and follow the centrality of the change of bread and wine into real body and blood, or they have to reject it as misguided or regionally prevelant instead of universally adhered to. Its pervasive presence leaves me no choice, personally, but to accept it--and in that case, I am limited only to those communions who insist on its change--RC, EO and NC.
God bless you, man, and your honest inquiry...
