Is the E. Orthodox Church the original Church?

[Isa_Almisry]

1. THE EUCHARISTIA.

The Eucharistia, or the Anaphora, which is the word used in the “Apostolic Constitutions” of the fourth century, is the Eucharistic Prayer, which constitutes the core of the Divine Liturgy. Eucharistia means “thanksgiving” and Anaphora means “to offer sacrifices”. It begins with the Prologue and ends with the Doxology.

During the Eucharistia, the faithful, while following step by step the process indicated by the Eucharistic Prayer, should make an intense spiritual effort to feel and realize his unity with Christ and as such the fact that he is a child of God, and being in God.

B. THE ANAMNESES.

In the Anamnesis are recounted all the gifts and blessings of God and all the fruits of His infinite mercy; the mercies shown in the old dispensation, and especially those in the new by the Incarnation of the son. Then the mandate of the Lord at the Last Supper is remembered and recounted. This mandate is then linked in the same sentence to the crucifixion, indicating that the “doing” bidden at the Last Supper was a “mystery” sacramentally pre-enacting the sacrifice on Calvary, and thus showing the way in which the faithful could benefit by the passion and death and the resurrection of the Lord.

**During the Anamnesis the faithful **should recapitulate in their minds and meditate upon the events of the life and passion and death of Christ. Then they should endeavor to realize the fact that they are “in Christ” and as such they try to re-live Christ’s life on earth with Him. And they should make an inward, spiritual offering of themselves to God, together with Christ being offered on the Altar.
E. THE EPICLESIS

The Epiclesis corresponds to the moment when Christ’s body in the tomb was changed into living, glorified body. The Gifts up to now represented the figures or symbols, “the mysteries,” of the earthly body of Christ. At the Epiclesis, when the Holy Spirit descends and infuses the Gifts, they become the “mysteries” the “symbols” of the living, glorified Body of Christ. In the same manner did the Lord’s body in the tomb become living through the Holy Spirit and rose from the dead.

During the Epiclesis the faithful, while praying with the priest so that God may send the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts, would also pray their heavenly Father to send the same Holy Spirit into their soul, so that they may be one with Christ and His church, and may thus be transfigured and raised together with Christ, after the remission of their sins.

D. THE DIPTYCHS.

The Diptychs signify and emphasize the fact that the sould of the dead are part of the living body of Christ and that they also rise with Christ.

The congregation may be seated

When the General Intercessions are made during the Diptychs, the faithful should remember and pray for the faithful of the past ages, who lived and died in Christ and who carried forward and handed down the faith to the succeeding generations. the members of the conngregations whould recall and realize the fact that they belong to the same spiritual family under the fatherhood of God, and that the souls of the dead in Christ speak and work in and through them.

During the Special Intercessions the faithful should remember and pray for their own dead, belonging to the immediate circle of their family, relatives, friends and acquaintances. They should also especially remember and pray for them for whom the prayers of the congregation have been requested.

E. THE DOMINICAL PRAYER

The congregation stands

After the acceptance of the Sacrifice by God, when the union of the faithful in the Church with Christ is once more assured, when the faithful have “received the spirit of adoption whereby we cry: Abba, Father,” when the Spirit bears witness “that we are the children of God…and joint heirs with Christ,” then the congregation exultantly bursts into singing the Lord’s Prayer. Thus the singing of the Lord’s Prayer is the climax of what went before in the divine Liturgy.

While the Litany is being recited and the Lord’s Prayer is being sung, the faithful should follow their meaning with earnest attention, and they should rejoice and be exceedingly glad for their privilege of being the children of the heavenly Father. They should further resove that they will be worthy of such an infinitely great and wonderful status.

1. THE INTINCTION AND FRACTION

By the immersion of the sacramental Body of Christ in the sacramental Blood, salvation by Christ’s Blood is signified. The spiritual baptism of the believers by the spirit and His fire, through communion with the living, life-giving and glorified Body of Christ and through the washing by His Blood, is indicated by the act of Intinction in the Eucharist.

Fraction is symbolic of the unity of the body of Christ in the multiplicity of the individual members of the Church. Thus one loaf is broken and distributed among the people. Fraction following the Eucharistia corresponds with the action by the Lord when He “broke the bread” after “giving thanks,” and said it should be distributed among many.

During the Intinction and Fraction, **the faithful **should recall their baptism of the water and of the spirit, by which they were cleansed of their sins and received spiritual power from God. They should renew their realization that they are saved by Christ’s Blood, and that they share this salvation with their fellow Christians, with whom they are one.
Here is sung the “Lord Have Mercy” the congregation kneeling or standing.

1. THE COMMUNION

Communion is the final act of the Holy Sacrifice. It is the sacramental union of the believer with the Lord Christ. It’s effect is remission of the sins of the communicant, his sanctification, and reception by him of the power of the Spirit and of eternal life, which was promised by the Lord Jesus Christ to them that would taste of His very Body and Blood.

Communion is the act by which the believer “mystically” or sacramentally receives Christ through the Holy Spirit. For this reason it brings to mind the day of Pentecost when the Church and her members received the Holy Spirit sent by the Father through Christ. As Pentecost concluded the cycle of events connected with the work of Christ Incarnate, so also communion concludes the “mystical” theosis of the believer through the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The faithful should approach communion with full consciousness of the importance of their act for the health and salvation of their souls. They should receive communion feeling “hungry and thirsty” for it, feeling the necessity for the cleansing of their souls, when they are repentant and humble, and when they are alright in their faith.

Communion is the exclusive and great privilege for an Orthodox Christian, and he should be fully conscious of it.

F. THE INCLINATION AND ELEVATION

The congregation kneels or stands.

The Christian, after realizing his lofty status of being the Son of God and joint heir with Christ, can only be “kept whole” by virtue of his humility, as the Prayer of Inclination suggests. The Inclination, signifies the profound truth of the paradox that we can only have the right to be proud by being humble, just as Christ went through the uttermost degree of humility before He rose and ascended into heaven. Humility, the greatest of virtues, is the condition of the possession of our patrimony. The Prayer of Inclination is addressed to the Holy Spirit because He is the source of all virtues.

The Elevation brings to mind the Ascension of Christ, whereby He went up to heaven, up to His holiness, and “sat with the Father,” as the wording of the Prayer of Elevation indicates. It shows the highest point of the upward progress of the life of the soul.

During the Inclination and Elevation the faithful should first bow down and pray for the virtue of humility, for the health and wholeness of their souls. Then, rising, they should raise their inward eyes up to heaven and to the throne of God, and should pray the Lord for holiness and for the life of the Spirit from on high.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/sermons.html’
At first seems promising:
The Lord Christ in his death was a substitute:** He died instead of humanity and his death was necessary to redeem humanity from the justice of God and to reconcile between his justice and his mercy. This was done intentionally, by his own will and the will of his heavenly father. While he was the incarnate God innocent of sin, infallible, he took the place of sinful humanity and bore the suffering willingly instead of them**.

He died on the cross to make peace with our heavenly father according to what the apostle Paul says: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (II Corinthians 5:21) and “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us’” (Galatians 3:13). The apostle Peter said: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (I Peter 2:24).

but then goes on:

Christ is with every believer and had promised saying, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:20) The disciples of the Lord know there is no resurrection without death and no glorious crown without the crown of thorns. Therefore, when they accept the crucified Christ as their personal savior they crucify themselves with him to live not for themselves but for Christ who lives in them, as the apostle Paul says. If they are dead in sin like Saul of Tarsus they will be granted life in Christ and they will become chosen vessels like the apostle Paul. Most of the saints in heaven were sinners and blind; they had eyes but they did not see. But, when they believed in Christ the Savior of the world, the scales that were covering their eyes fell away. Their eyes were opened and they saw the light of Christ risen from the dead and believed in him so they were granted the grace of justification and sanctification, renewal and adoption. They became the children of God by grace and inheritors of his heavenly kingdom.

Let us also rise with Christ, Oh beloved, to see him clearly saying, “Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself” (Luke 24:39). He is the Savior who loved us and he was afflicted with these wounds for our sake, so what have we presented to him?

**Let us examine our hands and feet. Have our hands done the deeds of goodness and godliness? Have our feet walked on the way of righteousness and integrity? **
Let us listen well and we will hear the Lord saying to us: “Peace be with you” and our hearts will be filled with love for God and for neighbors and we will be at peace with God, ourselves and neighbo

Next time you hear OO deny the doctrine of the Atonement – the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ - tell them in good conscience that their views are opposed to the teachings of their Churches.

From what I’ve seen (including your links) that would apply only to those Orientals who floated down the Tiber.

 

[Melchior]

Not sure if this is according to the rules. I think that, according to the rules here, this goes under NCR.

I’ll answer for the Orthodox. We are the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church.

On all the issues attached to 1054, we upheld, and uphold, the orginal dogmas and practices: no filioque, leavened Eucharist, etc.

And so it stands.

As far as the leavened bread goes, this is straining at gnats. The eucharist was instituted with unleavened bread and it would most certainly have been the practice of the apostles to continue, at least for a time. That the later early church switched to unleavened as the gentile population in the church increased was a matter of pragmatism not theology. Like the filioque it became more theological than ever originally intended to be used and a weapon to justify schism.

I am pretty certain that when we are before the judgement seat what type of bread was used is not going to be high on the priority list. This type of straining at gnats convinced me that such petty, after the fact issues (calenders too), would not be used to justify schism by the one true church. Such things are so far from the gospel of grace and pharisaical.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It may have been before your time here. There were definitely some who flat-out denied that there is such a thing as a head bishop (claiming in opposition that Christ is the only head of the Church).

When it comes to the level/aspect of mystical/sacramental theology, Christ is the only Head.

I’ll grant that I recall succinctly that these were EO converts.Perhaps they are not getting correct catechesis on the matter? If you guys aren’t careful, that heterodoxy may spread.

I think we are holding our own.

You, on the other hand, might have a serious talk with Dauphin.

Latins have never used the simplicity of God to justify filioque, they are two separate issues. It is the EO, on the other hand, who have used the distinction to reject filioque. I believe it was done during the 14th century, at the same synod which dogmatized Palamas’ position over his adversary’s.

Barlaam, who wrote against the papacy and then took a mitre from the Vatican.

It has been repeated here by some EO, and I think something from orthodoxinfo website was alluded to at some point (I might be wrong on that, though). To insert a distinction WITHIN the Godhead other than the distinction of Persons is a novelty within Eastern Orthodoxy. It might be open to interpretation, but at best it is a serious error, and at worst it is full blown heterodoxy.

When YOU put it that way, yes.

I doubt that. Otherwise, EO would say “not just that.” But they never make that qualification.

I’ve seen the states on the different interpretations posted here several times.

If they think the Catholic Church teaches an exclusive interpretation of the Rock of Matthew’s Gospel as Peter, well, then, that is just another example of the ignorance of non-Catholics on the actual Catholic teaching on the matter.

How about “ignorance” of the supporters of the Vatican on the matter?

He made Peter a perpetual principle of …unity and a visible foundation that …on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Preamble.

Lumen Gentium:
This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares…the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head…This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head. This college’s…]power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act…Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.

And if this wasn’t enough (!), there is appended:

1. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands…It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

And for us:

N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss-specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."

As for bishops being the popes acolytes:

1. A bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,” …[in contrast] Priests, although they do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, nevertheless they are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity.
   But then the council has to ammend its words:
2. The College [of bishops], which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops

And so, how does the relationship of pope to bishops differ from bishop to priests?

Why does it matter? Catholics are free to interpret Scripture in whatever way as long as it does not violate Church teaching. Don’t you have any freedom of interpretation in the EOC?

Freedom to that extend only exists outside the EOC. That’s how they find themselves outside.
I bring this up because it is SO frequently claimed here that the teachings of Vatican I and II have existed always from the beginning. When, we ask? Matthew 16, we are told. We, nor our Fathers interpreted it that way, at which point Eliakim is thrown in as the “trump card.” I’m just showing the weakness of the syllogism.

Yes they can interpret it as long as it does not violate Church teaching, and if you are attached to the Vatican, this teaching doesn’t violate Vatican I or II. But it doesn’t prove Vatican I or II have been the teaching of the Father on Matthew 16.

Agreed, but I’ve never heard or read of a Latin demean the use of icons, but there are certainly EO polemicists out there who demean the use of statues or three-dimensional images.

Council of Frankfurt, “revoked” the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Yes, I’ve seen them (the EO polemics). They have a point which they stretch too far.
I understand that St. Nilus is always represented by a statue, as he dying standing up, in prayer.

I’ve seen statues in all the WRO that I’ve visited. But I acknowleged your point on some EO “enthusiasts.”

What are you referring to?

That the Coptic Orthodox don’t have annullments.

 

[Melchior]

The traditional Jewish seder is not the norm of the 1st century, as the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. show.

That is completely unhistorical. Hellenization has led the eastern churches to have a truly ignorant understanding in Jewish religious practice in the first century. Scripture itself reference “The feast of unleavened bread”. Further a Jew having a seder in any generation with leavened is would be unthinkable. It’s like having a eucharist without the bread and wine. Unleavened, was and is used the entire length of the feast.

How do the dead sea scrolls show otherwise?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Or your guys’ computers/internet connection just suck.

It also can vary according to the load on the WWW, and how long since you gave your computer a rest.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

1. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.
2. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).
3. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
   ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consideratione., iii, 8).

Btw, he’s no friend of ours:
I, for one, shall speak about those obstinate Greeks *, who are with us and against us, united in faith and divided in peace, though in truth their faith may stray from the straight path.
De Consideratione, iii, 1. (btw, he refers to Ephraim as “diligent doctor,” so he likes him).

Do you mean the faulty translation thereof (the Masoret says “they”: does that indicate that infinite regression that you quote from St. Gregory?

potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit*
As I said before, St. John Chrystostom suggested Mary sinned. Are you willing to let his view be the norm? Because the IC teaching was not yet defined, people could be in good standing with the Church and not be heretics if they believed otherwise. Odd how you didn’t choose an eastern father. The fact remains the consense of the Fathers’ teaching on Mary is in line with what the Church teaches in the dogma of the IC.

Don’t you proclaim Mother of God as “all holy” somewhere during the Liturgy?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

most-holy is what it is.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

all holy is actually there:
Another Prayer, To the Most Holy Theotokos: All-holy Lady, Theotokos, light of my darkened soul, my hope, protection, refuge, consolation, my joy; I thank thee that thou hast vouchsafed me, who am unworthy, to be a partaker of the most pure Body and precious Blood of thy Son. O thou who gavest birth to the true Light, do thou enlighten the spiritual eyes of my heart; thou who didst gavest birth to the Source of Immortality, revive me who am dead in sin; thou who art the loving-compassionately Mother of the merciful God, have mercy on me and grant me compunction and contrition in my heart, and humility in my thoughts, and the recall of my thoughts from their captivity. And vouchsafe me until my last breath to receive without condemnation the sanctification of the mose Pure Mysteries for the healing of soul and body; And grant me tears of repentance and confession, with which to hymn and glorify thee all the days of my life; For blessed and glorified art Thouunto the ages. Amen.

http://www.orthodox.net/services/sluzebnic-chrysostom.html

I guess the distintion between “most” and “all” is minimal anyways. The most contains the all. And rightfully so, especially in Our Lady situation.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

P.S. Discussion of Orthodoxy should really go in the Non-Catholic Religions forum, not in the Eastern Catholicism forum.

Thread go elsewhere? Someone being rude? Here’s what to do…

This thread is asking for a Catholic response so it would belong in Apologetics or Eastern Catholicism. Since it could legitimately be placed here, it will remain here unless the poster indicates he intended to receive a Roman Catholic response. It is understood that threads posted here will receive an Eastern Catholic response, including to historic and apologetic queries.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As far as the leavened bread goes, this is straining at gnats. The eucharist was instituted with unleavened bread and it would most certainly have been the practice of the apostles to continue, at least for a time. That the later early church switched to unleavened as the gentile population in the church increased was a matter of pragmatism not theology. Like the filioque it became more theological than ever originally intended to be used and a weapon to justify schism.

I am pretty certain that when we are before the judgement seat what type of bread was used is not going to be high on the priority list. This type of straining at gnats convinced me that such petty, after the fact issues (calenders too), would not be used to justify schism by the one true church. Such things are so far from the gospel of grace and pharisaical.

Artos means “bread.” There is a specific word for unleavened bread “ayzme,” which is never used in the context of the Eucharist. Artos, however, is the generic term, so not totally exclude unleavened (Hellenistic Jews used it for matzo).

Depending on modern Jewish practice as regards Seder is not determinative, as it seems, with the destruction of the Temple (and the paschal sacrifice), that the Seder combines the Passover with the Yearly Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. One is Nisan 14, the other the 15th. Christ, the Qorban PesaH, was offered on the 14th, the Seder would be (withother leaven) that night.
Polycrates of Ephesus (c. AD 190) emphatically notes this is the tradition passed down to him, that Passover and Unleavened Bread were kept on 14 Nisan in accord with the local interpretation of the dating of Passover: “As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day, neither adding nor taking away.[5][6] For in Asia great luminaries have gone to their rest who will rise again on the day of the coming of the Lord… These all kept Pascha (Easter) on the 14th day, in accordance with the Gospel… Seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven” (8.773, 8.744 “Ante-Nicene Church Fathers”). Hence Quartodecimanism, i.e. 14thers.
Yes, I’ve been told that artos is Living Bread, so it, not azyme, is the type of Christ, but no, I don’t think it is high on the list of accusations at the Judgment Seat.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That is completely unhistorical. Hellenization has led the eastern churches to have a truly ignorant understanding in Jewish religious practice in the first century.

The Talmud is not an infallible guide either.

Scripture itself reference “The feast of unleavened bread”.

Which is the 15th Nisan, the Mystical Supper was instituted the night before.

Further a Jew having a seder in any generation with leavened is would be unthinkable.

Yes, beginning with the 15th.
In Modern Judaism, when does the search bedikat chametz al biyur chametz take place, with the 10 little pieces to prevent bracha l’vatala, burnt and the head of he household declare biyur chametz? Is it not Good Friday morn?

It’s like having a eucharist without the bread and wine. Unleavened, was and is used the entire length of the feast.

which is the equivalent of Bright Week, not Holy Week.

How do the dead sea scrolls show otherwise?

For one, they didn’t use the same calendar.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As I said before, St. John Chrystostom suggested Mary sinned. Are you willing to let his view be the norm?

Somehow we and the Fathers have managed not to, without the IC. And we also don’t ignore Chrysostom’s words.

Because the IC teaching was not yet defined, people could be in good standing with the Church and not be heretics if they believed otherwise. Odd how you didn’t choose an eastern father.

It’s a Western heresy, and Bernard was there to declare it stillborn. We didn’t know of it till it filtered out East.

The fact

you mean eisogeis.

remains the consense of the Fathers’ teaching on Mary is in line with what the Church teaches in the dogma of the IC.

So the Vatican says.

Don’t you proclaim Mother of God as “all holy” somewhere during the Liturgy?

And elsewhere.

And as I have explained, neither we, nor our Fathers understand IC by it.

 

[wanner47]

I found this article today while researching a different topic and thought of this thread.

Why I am Not Eastern Orthodox by Jimmy Akin

 

[anthony022071]

I’d make a comment, but I will first ask, your point?

The point is that the Orthodox Church is not the original Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Yes, we sit on the boundaries that our Fathers set up just to be onoary (spllng?) because we have nothing better to do than to vent our envy against God’s vicar, whose recognition we crave to give us legitimacy, without out whom we can’t get along, just repeating empty phrases our Fathers gave us (except of course when we are inventing innovations like Hesychasm). Does that sum it up.

That’s as good a definition of a polemicist as I ever saw. If you want to count yourself among them, be my guest.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The point is that the Orthodox Church is not the original Church.

So, what Faith did the Catholic Church have prior to the Schism?

Yes, so you use the word Catholic. Most Orthodox languages have two different words for Catholic, one for universal, as in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and another for followers of the Vatican. Greek doesn’t, because of course, universal is “catholicos” (Latin has no interest in making the distinction).

So you keep the title Catholic Church, and that means you are identical with the original, huh? Identity of name?

Well, the pope of Rome has the title “pontiff.” It’s the oldest he has.

Does he sacrifice to Jupiter?

Is he regulating the consecration of new temples to the gods (Nova Roma should know).

Is he auguring?

Is he divinizing the men of state?

No. I don’t think so. But he has the title.

But that doesn’t mean the office hasn’t changed.

Nor that the use of label Catholic identifies the True and original Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

The apologists of the Vatican: they say the Catholics in Visigoth Spain needed it, when said Arians were prostrate before the Catholic Church.

No. Not that particular one. I guess you did not know that Arianism was the catch-all phrase for just about every heresy relating to Christ. But it was not the one you mentioned.

This one?

No. Your quote does not even address the specific relationship between Son and Spirit.
This is the one: “Nor do the Son and the Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence according to the diaeresis of Arius.”

Is this what you are talking about?

No. It’s before that. That’s “0 for 3.” :tiphat:

The relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the theological (not economic) Trinity, which the distinctions of Essence and Energies down apply, as Each knows the Other as He knows Himself.

Couldn’t quite understand you because of the typo. But if you’re saying that the Essence/Energies distinction should not be applied to the filioque controversy, then we’re on the same page.

What He says is: It appears then that the most proper of all the names given to God is “He that is,” [LXX ὁ ὤν, what is written in EO icons in the Cross in Christ’s halo] as He Himself said in answer to Moses on the mountain, Say to the sons of Israel, He that is hath sent Me [Exod. iii. 14]. For He keeps all being in His own embrace [Greg. Naz., Orat. 36], like a sea of essence infinite and unseen. Or as the holy Dionysius says, “He that is good [Dionys., De div. nom. c. 2, 3 and 4]” For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second [This sentence and the preceding are absent in some mss., and are rather more obscurely stated than is usual with John of Damascus].

I don’t exactly know what your point is If you are agreeing that the Essence/Energies distinction is not actual WITHIN the Godhead, but is only a mental convention to help the Christian grasp the incomprehensible, then we are on the same page.

I think you got lost somewhere here. We’ve never had a problem with “who proceeds from the Father through the Son,” the use of the word ekporeusis making it clear that we are speaking of the theological Trinity. Also making clear that filioque is a heresy.

I guess you never bothered to read the paragraph starting with “And yes, I understand that…” You have to be careful about that. That kind of eisegesis just makes you look silly.

You might do well to keep your own comments in mind:

What was it you were saying about strawmen and misrepresentation again?
Put those matches down! (I Corin. 3:13-5).

And filioque is not a heresy when used with procedere or proienai, as you had already admitted elsewhere. For the sake of peace, you should clarify your statements more. You don’t want to appear polemic do you?

and as we speak here ad nauseum, the proper quote (not allusion) to ekporeusis.

Did I say there was an allusion to ekporeusis? It’s all in your mind brother, it’s all in your mind.

My signature?
I think you are talking of your coreligionist Apotheum (is he still with us?).

You’re right! I hope he’s reading this.

like above?

Amen! Let’s get the FULL story on the Damascene, not little snippets.

As the FATHERS describe it, dia THROUGH.

As stated ad nauseum, there are EO who claim that the Son has ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN THE PROCESSION. St. Damascene teaches otherwise, as do many other Fathers of the East/Orient. Don’t close your eyes to the problem, brother. If you encounter this error among your co-religionists, I hope you would take the effort to quote them the full teaching of the Damascene.

Only in Vatican apologies.

Uhhhh. Case in point - there are EO who claim that the Son has ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in the Procession.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[w_stewart]

They both said receive both, unless you can provide any words of theirs otherwise

John 5:51-52

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

By eating his body (bread) alone, one “shall live forever”. It is enough for one to have eternal life. Without wine, still one shall have eternal life.

1 Cor. 11:27

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Clear enough? Paul says EITHER of the two.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

From what I’ve seen (including your links) that would apply only to those Orientals who floated down the Tiber.

I didn;t realize ANY of those sites were linked to Catholicism. Can you give proof for that claim from those sites?

Otherwise, I would only request once again that in good conscience, if you find any OO denying the doctrine of the Atonement, let them know it is against the teaching of their Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk