The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[Eric B]

At this point I believe we are all moving into a discussion of differing interpretations of Sanctification and the life of the Faithful. Eric is clearly there anyways. I'm not sure the Mods are going to let us depart from the OP in order to discuss this distinction but it would be interesting.

I'm trying not to move it that way; just pointing out that I see now, if I'm reading them correctly, that that is what is involved in this "spiritual impartation of life" through the sacraments.
At 30 pages, [just pushed it to 31] this thread is going to close very soon, anyway.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Be aware that I am not Orthodox but I am only trying to say that you can't just 'assume' that the whole history of the Church backs the modern Roman Catholic Church. That just isn't the case.

The reason I asked my pervious question about the Catholic Church’s dogma of Transubstantiation as a response to the likes of Zwingli was to get a feel of your thoughts, and I’ve taken your advice and have been doing as much objective research as I can.

In the 16th Century Orthodoxy had to confront one of its own regarding Calvinism, Cyril of Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople. In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem responded by adopting the Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem. This Synod also responded to Calvinist preacher Jean Claude, who claimed that the Easter Church supported his assertion that Transubstantiation was a modern invention.

For length purposes, here’s the link to the Confession. Decree XVII is worth a looking at.
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Looks to me that the patriarchs didn’t have a problem employing the distinctions and language of that of the Council of Trent, regarding Transubstantiation. What I’m finding is that Up until very recently Russian and Greek theologians continued to describe the transformation as a change of essence.

Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: he writes:

In the Mystery of the Eucharist, at the time when the priest, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the offered Gifts, blesses them with the prayer to God the Father: “Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit”—the bread and wine actually are changed into the Body and Blood by the coming down of the Holy Spirit. After this moment, although our eyes see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisibly for sensual eyes, this is the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the “forms” of bread and wine.​

In other words, it seems from my limited research that for 400 years Orthodoxy affirmed the real identification of Christ in language very similar to Catholicism and at the time, didn’t feel it was necessary to distance itself from Catholicism on this point.

I believe that as I dig deeper, I’ll need to answer just why have modern contemporary Orthodox theologians now all of a sudden reject Transubstantiation as a Western aberration, while at the same time, it is my understanding is that Catholic theologians are telling us that the dogma only seeks to state what Catholic Christianity has always confessed, namely that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

I’ll post more as I research, as long as this thread is open.
-

 

[bound]

The reason I asked my pervious question about the Catholic Church’s dogma of Transubstantiation as a response to the likes of Zwingli was to get a feel of your thoughts, and I’ve taken your advice and have been doing as much objective research as I can.

In the 16th Century Orthodoxy had to confront one of its own regarding Calvinism, Cyril of Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople. In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem responded by adopting the Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem. This Synod also responded to Calvinist preacher Jean Claude, who claimed that the Easter Church supported his assertion that Transubstantiation was a modern invention.

For length purposes, here’s the link to the Confession. Decree XVII is worth a looking at.
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Looks to me that the patriarchs didn’t have a problem employing the distinctions and language of that of the Council of Trent, regarding Transubstantiation. What I’m finding is that Up until very recently Russian and Greek theologians continued to describe the transformation as a change of essence.

Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: he writes:

In the Mystery of the Eucharist, at the time when the priest, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the offered Gifts, blesses them with the prayer to God the Father: “Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit”—the bread and wine actually are changed into the Body and Blood by the coming down of the Holy Spirit. After this moment, although our eyes see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisibly for sensual eyes, this is the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the “forms” of bread and wine.​

In other words, it seems from my limited research that for 400 years Orthodoxy affirmed the real identification of Christ in language very similar to Catholicism and at the time, didn’t feel it was necessary to distance itself from Catholicism on this point.

I believe that as I dig deeper, I’ll need to answer just why have modern contemporary Orthodox theologians now all of a sudden reject Transubstantiation as a Western aberration, while at the same time, it is my understanding is that Catholic theologians are telling us that the dogma only seeks to state what Catholic Christianity has always confessed, namely that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

I’ll post more as I research, as long as this thread is open.
-

Well, this all looks very damning for my position. I actually have Father Michael Pomazansky's book and I'll investigate a response over the weekend for you.

Thank you for a substantive discussion.

 

[Eliyahu]

Why the Early Church Fathers, why not Christ's command in John 6 and Paul's statement concerning the participation in both Christ's Body and His Blood?
-

Agnes,
The question between Matt and Me was that the Bible itself can be interpretted in different ways depending on who interpret it. Therefore, Matt brought that ECF's support Real Presence or Transubstantiation.
Then I asked If there was any ECF who claim that we should drink Blood despite Leviticus.

As for John 6, the final statement of Jesus makes it very clear:

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.


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.


Could you understand that Jesus meant the spiritual Bread and Spiritual Drink of Blood?

He said Flesh profits nothing.

Jesus was talking about Spiritual Bread and Drinks, which can be available to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.
This relates to the story of ch 4 about the woman and the Jacob's well. Jesus Himself is the everlasting fountain which brings forth the living water.

By believing in Jesus Christ, we are eating His Flesh and His Blood every day, as He said in Revelation 3:20

You misunderstood quite a lot!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Could you understand that Jesus meant the spiritual Bread and Spiritual Drink of Blood? He said Flesh profits nothing.

Christ’s flesh profits us nothing huh? Well, Christ’s flesh profits us everything Eliyahu! If His flesh profits us nothing then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, He died for no reason, and He rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world! So if Christ’s flesh profits us nothing, then by you’re reasoning (without thinking and relying on someone else to think for you), the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ is of no avail, then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (1 Cor. 15:17-18)

In John 6:63 flesh profits nothing refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them.

Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me. So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to me to read Christ just command His disciples to eat His flesh and then mean by John 6:63 that it is a waste of their time.
-

 

[DHK]

Furthermore, it makes no sense to me to read Christ just command His disciples to eat His flesh and then mean by John 6:63 that it is a waste of their time.

It is not a waste of time if you understand that the context of his words are in the context of belief not the act of physical eating.
At any rate, it is time for this thread to close, feel free to start another one.