|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In the bread or in the eating?
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
It doesn't surprise me at all Paul. It is quite consistent with your ecclesiology .... which I recognise as my own. Doubtless there are many who will differ! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
To belabor the obvious, the look, texture, smell, taste of the bread has not changed. So what has changed? Clearly, the MEANING of the bread has changed, as well as the meaning of the actions of eucharist. And those meanings are not "just subjective." They are shaped by our traditions.
I found your post very heartening, Lou. I, a Baptist, agree fully with the above. What surprises me is that you say 'meaning' rather than 'substance.' It's how I see it, but it's not how I thought Orthodox and Catholic Christians see it.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
rather than 'substance.' It's how I see it, but it's not how I thought Orthodox and Catholic Christians see it.
I have a philosophical problem with the word "substance." In the classical Scholastic sense it is used to differentiate the "what it is" from the accidents, the "what is sensed (texture, taste, etc.)." The problem is that the substance is not an attribute of the object in itself, but rather an attribute of the object as known. In other words essence and existence, substance and accident, are terms of analysis. It seems crystal clear to me that when we talk about trans-substantiation or consubstantiation as if we were talking about the object in its own self we REALLY are talking about the object-as-known, or better, the object-as-understood. In other words, that language really addresses the MEANING of the bread. Is that not our faith response to the story we enter each time we make eucharist together?
I heard a story that our former rector nearly gave his bishop a stroke some years ago when, after a eucharist in which they used bread which had been made by the youth group and was extremely crumbly, the bishop asked the rector what he was going to do with the crumbs. The rector off-handedly said he intended to feed the birds with them. I don't know what the bishop said, but I think there is a rather lovely biblical resonance in that idea. Do the birds Communicate? No, that is nonsense. But the crumbly remnants of that celebration, in my mind, cease to signify what the loaf meant during the blessing-breaking-giving-and-eating that is eucharist. When the eucharistic elements are reserved for use with the sick and shut-ins, or to continue a sacramental (symbolic) presence in the church, they retain their meaning, which I can comfortably call Real Presence.
I don't know if that is muddy or clear, but it is how I see it.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
But the crumbly remnants of that celebration, in my mind, cease to signify what the loaf meant during the blessing-breaking-giving-and-eating that is eucharist.
So the Real Presence depends on YOU and your mind and what it means to you? And the poor bishop, is there Real Presence for him but not for you (as long as you don't throw it to the birds)? And what about God, can Christ not maintain his Real Presence after things have lost any meaning to you?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear hatless
I don't know why you include the Orthodox in your reference to "surprise." For us, it's not just the "meaning" that is involved. The bread, remaining bread, IS different. I'm afraid that nominalism is raising its head here again .... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Presumably
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This reflects the fact that according to both Catholic and Orthodox understandings there has been no defect, impairment or dubiety concerning the sacraments of our respective churches.
As soon as women are consecrated bishops in the Church of England this will be yey one more and perhaps final wedge in the Anglican-Orthodox reciprocity (such as it is) in ministries.
is a practical outworking of
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It seems to me that determination (judging?) that a Communion service in another church is not valid suggests a view that Christ is 'in the bread' (although this does not preclude Him also being 'in the eating'). If person A believes that they can take Communion in church X, but should not in church Y (even though they perceive their church Y to be composed of their Christian brothers and sisters) then this seems to imply that there is something about the bread in church Y which is wrong.
The more 'open' a stance on Communion the more this suggests that Christ is 'in the eating'.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear hatless
I don't know why you include the Orthodox in your reference to "surprise." For us, it's not just the "meaning" that is involved. The bread, remaining bread, IS different. I'm afraid that nominalism is raising its head here again ....
Dear Gregory,
The reference to surprise was because Lou said:
quote:
For those in the Catholic/Orthodox realm, we perceive the meaning of the bread to be really and irrevocably changed.
I was surprised because I thought that for Orthodox Christians it would be more than just the meaning that changed.
A can agree with all that Lou has written, which is always a happy thing to discover, but apparently there is a significant divide between you and me on this issue, which I'm keen to explore more.
You've mentioned nominalism as a bad thing before, but not explained the nature of your disapproval in any of the threads I've read. Is there somewhere I could go to discover what you understand by nominalism and what it is you so dislike about it?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
hatless, nominalism was discussed at length in a recent thread titled "The Sign of the Cross." Unfortunately, that thread appears to have been pruned. Nominalism played a part in the Red Cross thread in Hell, but you won't get an in-depth treatment there.
Lou, your posts were both interesting and enlightening. Thank you for sharing your experience. I agree with you when you say that "the meaning of elements and action is shaped by our faith traditions." There is a contextual aspect of meaning which, although denied by some, is essential to maintaining a healthy sense of perspective. Losing that perspective can result in bizarre distortions of Christ's gospel.
Chapelhead, you make an interesting point about a more open communion implying an understanding that Christ is 'in the eating.' I share your concern about the implications of refusing to take Communion with another group of Christians. I am even more concerned by the implications of refusing to let another Christian partake with your own group.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear hatless
Unfortunately the thread "The Sign of the Cross" does not now exist which tackled this.
Go here for a brief definition ....
Nominalism
The relevance to sacramental theology is that nominalism asserts that the special quality attributed to Holy Communion exists only in the mind. Body of Christ is a name / meaning ... not a reality aside from perception. It is an idealist rather than realist concept. Realism has been claimed by some only to apply to empirically verifiable or falsifiable data ... positivist in its philosophical frame of reference. A nominalist finds the significance of objects only in the meaning we ascribe to them. Descriptors are mere names, labels for out thought processes. Medieval scholastics like St. Thomas Aquinas subscribed to moderate realism indicating objectivity in the mind of God. Extreme realists adopted a position very close to Platonism. Nominalists from Ockham onwards have difficulty in bringing transcendence (other than self transcendence) within their eistemology. Not unsurprisingly, nominalism has been the air western culture has breathed with the rise of materialism and empiricism.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
So it may not be about theology so much as epistemology.
I think I am neither realist nor non-realist, and yet not exactly critical realist, and not moderate realist, either. I might call myself hypothetical realist or pragmatic non-realist. In other words, I think that language describes a reality that probably really exists and which we can be reasonably confident of, thanks to the high probabalistic and systematic verifiability of our somewhat arbitrary and culturally determined yet nonetheless evidence influenced language. But I also think that we cannot be sure exactly which bits of our language are really reliable.
In still other words, I think the truth is out there somewhere, but that we never quite find it.
There is a spectrum from realism to non-realism, and I am somewhat towards to the non-realist end. Is this really important? Is sacramentalism about how we understand knowledge and language?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory is right. I think it is ALL about language.
Then what do we mean by "real"?
Big questions, and I don't claim to have a big enough brain to unpack all of that.
For a good discussion, Don Cupitt's more popular and well known book SEA OF FAITH.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Lou
Don Cupitt is the ultimate non-realist ... hardly a disinterested treatment but a good treatment of the non-realist position.
Dear hatless
quote:
Is sacramentalism about how we understand knowledge and language?
The epistemological assumptions condition how we "understand" not only sacraments but anything that exists and has meaning.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The epistemological assumptions condition how we "understand" not only sacraments but anything that exists and has meaning.
Indeed, but does an Orthodox believer have to be a philosophical realist? Are non-realists bound to have what you would consider a deficient understanding of sacraments?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear hatless
The Orthodox do not think in these terms anyway. Nominalism and realism come out of medieval western debates heavily influenced by the Renaissance and the status of human experience and enquiry. Our epistemology is radically different BUT there are comparative analogues available that would move us closer to what the west might typify in its own terms as moderate realism .... roughly the position taken by Aquinas. On the simpler question as to whether we would view a eucharistic model heavily conditioned by nominalism as defective ... in western terms, yes.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The epistemological assumptions condition how we "understand" not only sacraments but anything that exists and has meaning.
Indeed, but does an Orthodox believer have to be a philosophical realist? Are non-realists bound to have what you would consider a deficient understanding of sacraments?
This is a confusing question. If someone is a "non-realist" does that mean he is a nominalist on EVERY question which nominalism or realism might be used to interpret? Can I not disbelieve in say the Platonic Forms, or in the existence of "species" over and above the members thereof, or in (to use a Scholastic example) 'non-elephants' -- and yet still believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ? If not, why not?
Or by 'non-realist' do you mean somebody like Bishop Berkeley, who believed that matter was unreal and only minds existed? This seems clearly at odds with Orthodox teaching, which celebrates the becoming-matter of the Son of God quite explicitly. Certainly if this is your stripe of non-realism, then you are out of synch with the Orthodox Church and we would say your understanding of reality is deficient, not merely your understanding of the sacraments.
So I'm unclear exactly what it is you're asking.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
To be honest Mousethief ... so as I! Instead of trying to ride the wavecrest of confusion I should, like you have asked for clarification. I suspect though it's the old response:- "So you think we're defective do you?! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) " We're damned either way we answer that one. I may, however, be doing hatless a disservice.
It seems to me that ontological dependability depends in an Orthodox sense on the creative will and mind of God in whom we connect sensately with such "things." I think (emphasis "think") this is close to Aquinas.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It seems to me that ontological dependability depends in an Orthodox sense on the creative will and mind of God in whom we connect sensately with such "things." I think (emphasis "think") this is close to Aquinas.
This sounds more or less like Aquinas to me.
To bring it back (somewhat) to the original post, this is why I am hesitent to say, as Lou does, that Christ's presence is a matter of the "meaning" of the elements. I would go along with this if we were to specify that what we are talking about is the meaning that God gives to the elements, not the meaning we give to them. But then the reality of the presence of Christ's body and blood is, ontologically, the same as the reality of any other thing: it is what it is because God knows it to be that thing.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear hatless
I don't know why you include the Orthodox in your reference to "surprise." For us, it's not just the "meaning" that is involved. The bread, remaining bread, IS different. I'm afraid that nominalism is raising its head here again ....
All I'm trying to do is understand this comment. I can fully accept an understanding of the sacrament of the Eucharist in which the meaning of the bread and wine is thought to have changed. I can understand that that meaning is not only an individual subjective thing but is given by the understanding of the community. Such an understanding means that things must be done in good order. It is not an anything goes position.
However, you tell me that for Orthodox (and I thought for RC too) the bread, remaining bread, really is different. Nominalism is raising its head, you say.
Well, what do you mean? For me, the idea that the bread remains bread but is really different is virtually incoherent. Is this because I am not a realist? Do you have to be a realist to understand the Orthodox view of sacraments? Is my somewhat non-realist position anathema to Orthodox believers, or to this Orthodox believer?
I started this thread to ask about the nature of the presence of Christ at the Eucharist, because my belief in this is very important to me and my understanding of God. However, I don't believe in transubstantiation, and I wanted to find out exactly what the difference between my view and high sacramentalists is.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I am hesitent to say, as Lou does, that Christ's presence is a matter of the "meaning" of the elements. I would go along with this if we were to specify that what we are talking about is the meaning that God gives to the elements, not the meaning we give to them. But then the reality of the presence of Christ's body and blood is, ontologically, the same as the reality of any other thing: it is what it is because God knows it to be that thing.
FCB
We cross posted. This is helpful. I am left wondering if us giving meaning and God giving meaning are genuine alternatives.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear hatless
For us it is not incoherent to say ...
THIS IS BREAD
THIS IS THE BODY OF CHRIST
We say both without blinking because in the kingdom of God all things are changed but remain the same. The closest human analogue is in conversion and sanctification. It's still you and me but we are a "new creature."
As with conversion and sanctification is not a meaning I give to my own life ... it is a real change wrought in me by God with my cooperation.
It is exactly the same in the Eucharist in the sense that by Word and Spirit created realities become suffused with the transformative power of the kingdom.
What we are really talking about here is nominalism as it applies to the non-human material realm. I suspect that this is because certain western medieval theological trends (perpetuated through and by the Reformation) separated the material and spiritual realms. The material realm was "de-mystified" and handed over to the natural sciences whilst the emphasis on the "spiritual" created grave problems in Christian theology with a retreat into pietism. The Christological version of this was the neo-Nestorianism of much post Enlightenment Protestant theology. Traditions then chose whether they wanted the human "Jesus" (prophetic - social) or the divine "Christ" (mystical - pietistic). In practice of course such cleavage was never total but the sacramental effect was to render the bread and wine subject only to our perception of them rather than their transfigured reality ... which is what nominalism is all about. So, if some people don't believe in a real change it is because, primarly, of nominalism. (BTW .. as I have said before "transubstantiation" is only ONE way of understanding the change. It reflects the use of Aristotelian philosophy. There are other ways of expressing that).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I am left wondering if us giving meaning and God giving meaning are genuine alternatives.
That's a good question. You are right; it's not a zero-sum kind of thing. What the church does with the elements is what gives them sacramental meaning; but the Church only does it because of Christ's command and it is only effective because of the action of the Holy Spirit. So we don't need to deny the human role in things, but rather to see that human role as participating in God's meaning-giving.
As to Fr. Gregory's comment about it remaining bread that you found puzzling, I find it puzzling too. In RC theology, we would deny that it remains bread, since it can't be two things at the same time (i.e. we reject "consubstantiation"). This is not to say that it ceases to have the chemical composition of bread, but rather that chemical composition is not entirely determinative of the identity of a thing.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Maybe this is a genuine difference between Orthodoxy and both Catholicism and Protestantism combined. For "you" both it has to be EITHER bread OR the Body of Christ. That is as nonsensical as saying that Christ has to be EITHER human OR divine ... and for much the same reason, although, of course, in respect of Christ there is no temporal change. Nonetheless the analogy is useful as it speaks of how the ontology of something / someone can be unitively bipolar. This is interesting ... because if true, both Catholicism and Protestantism share the same defect in this respect .... a lack of poetry, mysticism and depth in ontology. Catholicism historically did realise the dangers of a bifurcated eucharistic theology ... which is why it enlisted Aristotle to distinguish substance (body of Christ) and accidents (chemical composition ... sensate properties). To the Orthodox this is utterly pointless. We have no difficulty believing in two complementary ontological dimensions simultaneously. Look at Christ again ... his not divine by CONVERSION of his humanity. He is divine in respect of his humanity by the enhypostatic union. What is true of Christ is true of his Body, (which, by the way, also includes you and me).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"Meaning" is based on social convention. For us, what happens to the bread and the wine is real, is "ontological" if you will, and not merely a matter of social convention.
I have thought for some time (about this thread) that we were all discussing epistemology when the real question is one of ontology. Words are a necessary handle on the world (for most of us, anyway), but they are not the world itself. And while it is useful to understand the relationship between our words and the world "out there," it is all to easy to fall into the trap of focusing on the words as if they were the whole game.
And where it starts really getting klugey is when we try to use words -- products of social convention for talking about things in our common experience -- for things that are, perhaps, beyond words. Things that aren't nearly so public and obvious as falling pianos and whispering leaves. Things like God, and the elements of communion.
It is of course a schoolboy error to suppose that because these things are not public and obvious that they can't possibly exist -- although schoolboys as prestigious as Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein have made the same error. This is the level at which words become more of a hindrance than a help, and it's possible to veer off into unhelpful side-tracks (which is what I believe "transubstantiation" to be). That's why in these kinds of areas the Orthodox are apt to say, "It's a mystery!" and leave it at that.
The desire to perfectly wrap words around everything in such a way that there is a hermetic seal between the sign and the thing signified, could arguably be said to be a result of the Scholastic Philosphers, of whom (of course) Thomas Aquinas was chief. So this is one area where the Orthodox might say that ol' Thom got it wrong. Maybe, we'd say, you can't wrap words around everything.
Egad. Scratch a philosopher and he bleeds a stream of consciousness. Sorry to have gotten carried away.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Maybe this is a genuine difference between Orthodoxy and both Catholicism and Protestantism combined. For "you" both it has to be EITHER bread OR the Body of Christ. That is as nonsensical as saying that Christ has to be EITHER human OR divine ...
You are making up a distinction which does not exist here. I can't speak for the Romans, but plenty of Protestants are perfectly happy to say "this is the body of Christ" while acknowledging that it is bread. Hundreds of millions of us do that whenever we take Communion.
As you say, it is not very different from being avle to say that Christ is God and that Christ is a man. Which we all do.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
quote:
It doesn't surprise me at all Paul. It is quite consistent with your ecclesiology .... which I recognise as my own. Doubtless there are many who will differ!
Out of interest, if in the near future the C of E ordains Women Bishops and in, say, fifty years time the 8th ecumenical council follows suit how would this affect the standing of Anglican orders in Orthodox eyes.
I accept fully that any answer you give would be hypothetical, and I promise not to use it as a stick to bash Orthodox ecclesiology!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Maybe this is a genuine difference between Orthodoxy and both Catholicism and Protestantism combined. For "you" both it has to be EITHER bread OR the Body of Christ.
Not true. The eucharistic doctrine you're presenting seems to me, bizarrely, identical to that held by Lutherans.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear JL
In what way not true for you and identical for me?
Dear Ken
Do these Protestants believe that the bread is different before and after consecration? If they do then I would be happy to concur. I know when I was an Anglican that was what a number of us believed ... but it is hardly the typical Protestant position. Our liturgy refers to a change by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Dear Professor Yaffle
Who knows what will happen in that time scale? You can't design ecclesiological positions and responses on hypothetical issues. Anglican orders are not also simply a matter of the gender of the priest ... nor can this issue be separated from wider concerns of faith, life and order. We don't have a mechanistic understanding of priesthood.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Father Gregory - Thank you for a straight answer.
In response to Ken's point both Common Worship and the MWB include a prayer that the bread and wine become the body and blood and the rubrics state that the consecrated elements be reverently disposed of. Of course, individual opinion and local practice may vary ;)but if liturgy and anecdotal evidence are guides to the opinions in the pew then I don't think that the view expressed by Ken is atypical of Anglican or Methodist views at least.
Actually, following JL's point, I suspect that Lutheran Eucharistic Theology is not a million miles away from the Orthodox position. The difference is that the Orthodox (if I understand them) refuse to define what happens - bread, wine, body, blood, it's a mystery - whereas Luther was reacting against Aquinas and invoked consubstantiation as an alternative to transubstantiation.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
In response to Ken's point both Common Worship and the MWB include a prayer that the bread and wine become the body and blood and the rubrics state that the consecrated elements be reverently disposed of. Of course, individual opinion and local practice may vary ;)but if liturgy and anecdotal evidence are guides to the opinions in the pew then I don't think that the view expressed by Ken is atypical of Anglican or Methodist views at least.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Along with a typical Anglican/Methodist reluctance to define. Hs this thread really got so far without anyone quoting:
quote:
Christ's was the word that spake it,
he took the bread and brake it,
and what his word did make it,
that I believe, and take it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Which little ditty Queen Elizabeth was quite prepared to utter excepting that her debater might be a (Roman) Catholic in which case no such tolerance was shown. I know that's got little to do with eucharistic theology directly but I am not prepared to exonerate "Good Queen Bess" ... in many ways she was just as intolerant as her father.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
To be honest Mousethief ... so as I! Instead of trying to ride the wavecrest of confusion I should, like you have asked for clarification. I suspect though it's the old response:- "So you think we're defective do you?! " We're damned either way we answer that one.
Would you be? Would it not just put you in the same position as the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches (among others) in recognising the validity of some celebrations of Holy Communion but not others? Most of the people on the Ship would thus not be in a position to damn you, being in churches with a similar position.
Or is the idea that your denomination (my eccelsiology, not yours) is not disimilar to others in this respect the thing that is damnable?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I can't speak for the Romans, but plenty of Protestants are perfectly happy to say "this is the body of Christ" while acknowledging that it is bread. Hundreds of millions of us do that whenever we take Communion.
Quite so.
The Articles of Religion of the CofE put it
quote:
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.
Which suggests that it is the Body of Christ, whilst also being bread.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Chapelhead,
We do regard some understandings of the Eucharist to be defective, yes ... but we make no judgements about what God is or is not doing in the churches concerned. The trouble is that if we are forced to expose with reasons why we regard such understandings as defective some people get terribly defensive and think we are judging the efficacy of what they do. That is in God's hands not ours. So, it's damned if we don't say anything and damned if we do, (I do not of course meaned damned literally!)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
We Orthodox steadfastly refuse to speculate about the efficacy of other churches' sacraments.
quote:
For "you" both (Protestants and Roman Catholics) it has to be EITHER bread OR the Body of Christ. That is as nonsensical as saying that Christ has to be EITHER human OR divine ... and for much the same reason, although, of course, in respect of Christ there is no temporal change.
So though orthodox Christians won't comment on the efficacy of your sacrements they will quite happily call your view of this 'nonsensical'.
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Burning people at the stake would clearly send a much less equivocal message.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The trouble is that if we are forced to expose with reasons why we regard such understandings as defective some people get terribly defensive and think we are judging the efficacy of what they do. That is in God's hands not ours. So, it's damned if we don't say anything and damned if we do
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
So though orthodox Christians won't comment on the efficacy of your sacrements they will quite happily call your view of this 'nonsensical'.
SEE? SEE?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The trouble is that if we are forced to expose with reasons why we regard such understandings as defective some people get terribly defensive and think we are judging the efficacy of what they do.
I can't imagine why, since it is not for you to judge the efficacy of anyone's communion. On that much, we agree.
My own frustration is triggered when you will not attempt to "expose with reasons," but rather retreat into redefinition of terms, or appeal to Orthodox tradition. I would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why my communion might be "defective." However, I will insist that the reasons be founded in such philosophy, theology, experience, or tradition as we might both agree is valid. Otherwise, all we are doing is berating one another in foreign languages.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
For us it is not incoherent to say ...
THIS IS BREAD
THIS IS THE BODY OF CHRIST
That's not at all incoherent to me, either. The bit that I have difficulty with is the idea that the bread is different. You say that Christ is human and divine without the human being converted. Right, and I think the bread remains bread, but that within the eucharistic celebration, the bread, and its breaking and serving and eating, become also the Body of Christ. It's not changed, because it's not, for me, either or.
It's not, I suggest, a matter of my nominalism, but of your tradition's naive realism. There seems to be this idea that Christ can only be really present in a material way, so there is this focus on the bread. There on the plate is where he is present, somehow attached to or inside of or appearing as the bread itself.
Surely Christ's presence is not material but personal and Spiritual. Christ's presence is, if he deigns to turn up, in the people and their life together as much as in the bread. The bread (or a fitting equivalent) is a necessary part of any celebration of the Eucharist, but it remains bread, it doesn't change. You said it remains bread, but you insisted that it is different. That's the bit that baffles me.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Surely Christ's presence is not material but personal and Spiritual.
This is docetism. Christ became matter, and effects our salvation by means of matter. To spiritualize it seems to this observer to deny this central fact.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
We have ALREADY hit a problem before any explanation!
quote:
I would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why my communion might be "defective."
Please be careful not to misquote or misrepresent me. The statement above infers that I think your Communion is defective .... which is something I would never do ... I make no judgement on what God may or may not do. That's his business. "Defective" can apply to form, content, intent or understanding judged against the universal tradition of the Church before the Reformation. (I say the Reformation because although east and west were split from 1054, Catholic eucharistic theology was essentially the same as ours and remains so). I may regard something as defective on the aforementioned definition yet hope or believe it to be fully efficacious in the hands of God. Talk of "form, content, intent or understanding" is necessary so that we might be faithful to the wisdom and godly provision that we have received. St. Paul himself shows this when in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 where he conveys what has been "handed down" to him. He doesn't say ... "ok, I'll devise my own eucharist." Nor should we.
Dear hatless
We are indeed close in our views of the eucharist but we still keep coming a cropper on the old same but different conundrum. When my daughter was born I became a father. I am still the same person. "Father" is not a role, a meaning ... it is an identity. This is only an anlogy but a useful one I think.
Dear Mousethief
I agree that "spiritual presence" of Jesus could be a docetist analogue. I am inclined to think though that it could be a Nestorian one. The divine Christ lives alongside or in the human Jesus. So, Jesus is "in the bread" or somewhere else ... in the believer's heart presumably ... but the same question / issue applies there as well. (Jesus and Christ can be interchangeable for this purpose so long as we are dealing with duality). The docetist analogue would be more fitting if someone thought that the bread was not bread at all but had been replaced by a wholly spiritual "body" ... which is not the issue here I think.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I see your point, Father. I was just thinking that "He's not there physically, it's a spiritual thing" seems to arise from a docetist-like fear or hatred of matter.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot
I would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why my communion might be "defective." However, I will insist that the reasons be founded in such philosophy, theology, experience, or tradition as we might both agree is valid. Otherwise, all we are doing is berating one another in foreign languages.
Perhaps Scot should have said that he would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why his communion is not one in which orthodox christians would partake. For me the problem is that the orthodox church sees itself as the church, rather than one amongst equals. For this reason it accepts the practices of its own tradition, even down to accepting variations introduced by factions of its own tradition, but refuses to accept the practices of traditions of other denominations which are equally, if not more deeply founded in scripture.
There is an air of superiority in this attitude which I feel detracts from orthodoxy. This refusal to express an opinion, when quite obviously an opinion is being expressed within the orthodox church, for me, seems like a tactical manouvre. At best it is to avoid offence to other denominations, at worst it is because they know their stance is indefensible.
The funny thing is that, for a church which believes itself to be the church, which wants all it's congregation to share in one communion, it refuses to allow anyone with a different view to operate within its ranks, in short it actively excludes a large proportion of the christian church on this issue. All for something it says it has no comment on! All for something it says it doesn't know about or is not sure about!
And really I find this rather sad.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
We are in full agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on the Eucharist and on many other matters ... much more so it must be said than with the Protestant Churches although we do have our issues with Rome as well. Nonetheless on the sacraments we are unitd. Our practice of inercommunion is often partial, restricted and unrealised but it does exist. Rome and ourselves have opposing views on who has the fulness but that doesn't stop us fully accepting each other at our altars. You and I do not have the same understanding of the Eucharist ... in fact it is radically different and in unity terms we are further away. Why should eucharistic hospitality exist in these circumstances? Maybe because we wouldn't have to work so hard at resolving our incompatible differences.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Rome and ourselves have opposing views on who has the fulness but that doesn't stop us fully accepting each other at our altars.
Good for you! But surely you could go further than that? Surely you could accept communion in a protestant manner, just once in a while? Surely, since you are not sure about it, it might be worth exploring? What good reason can there be for not exploring, do you think it might be abominable in the sight of God?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Rome and ourselves have opposing views on who has the fulness but that doesn't stop us fully accepting each other at our altars.
So the Orthodox can take Communion in a Roman Catholic church and a Roman Catholic in an Orthodox church?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
"Abominable?" !!! Why do you make the alternative unattractive ... to strengthen your own point? No, not abominable ... just lacking in integrity ... Orthodox do not receive Communion willy nilly even in their own Church.
Dear Chapelhead
This is the practice in the Patriarchate of Europe, Diocese in Western and Central Europe
If an Orthodox Christian or a Roman Catholic Christian is not within reasonable travelling distance of his / her own church or if he / she is "in extremis" without his / her own priest available then Communion may be received. However, if there was an ecumenical service which as a Catholic Mass in our city the Orthodox would not receive ... because that would not be their usual practice there being 5 Orthodox parishes in Manchester. We don't receive just because of the occasion or as an ecumenical gesture. On the other hand Rome is much more accommodating to us than we are to them. That's because hooking up to Rome in any way is a prime directive. I can understand that from where they are coming from. It's not, conversely, our approach though.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This is the practice in the Patriarchate of Europe, Diocese in Western and Central Europe
If an Orthodox Christian or a Roman Catholic Christian is not within reasonable travelling distance of his / her own church or if he / she is "in extremis" without his / her own priest available then Communion may be received.
I'm not quite sure what this means.
Are you saying that it is (in general) the practice in the Patriarchate of Europe, Diocese in Western and Central Europe, and that elsewhere may happen if an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian is not within reasonable travelling distance etc...
Or that within the Patriarchate of Europe, Diocese in Western and Central Europe, if an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian is not within reasonable travelling distance etc...
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Sorry Chapelhead ...
This regulation concerns Orthodox and Catholics in the aforementioned diocese. I can't speak for other Orthodox dioceses ... our provision is not unusual though ... however, there are other Orthodox jurisdictions who take a much much tougher line. You should know that many Orthodox consider the Patriarchate of Antioch to be too liberal and progressive, (shock as some contributors begin to wonder in amzemenmt as to what a more conservative approach in Orthodoxy might look like! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) )
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Typo! I bet you have never seen "amazement" spelt like that before! Sorry.
"in" with reference to Catholics means geographically resident in Antioch's geographical jurisdiction.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
