Holy Communion?
itz...@hotmail.com
Eucharist?
Please take the Poll.
Thanks, Deacon John
Percival P. Cassidy
1. Theological.
Your poll needs another option: "Through the sacrament Christ truly
communicates himself to the communicant but is not 'located in' the
bread and wine." In other words: There is a "real presence" of Christ in
the feast, but not necessarily in the bread and wine themselves. (I
don't think this is what most people who use the term "symbolic" mean.)
2. Linguistic.
a. "Seniors" not "Senior's"
b. "real presence" not "real presents"
Perce
Language Police, English Division ;-)
On 10/08/05 07:16 am itz...@hotmail.com tossed the following ingredients
into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
James
Two observations:
1. In your poll...the second choice is:
Yes, I believe in the “real presents” of Christ.
Obviously you meant "real presence"... right? You might want to correct
that misspelling.
2. Orthodox do not subscribe to the notion of transubstantiation. Nor
would we say we believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
We simply take Him at His word: He said "This is my body, which will be
given for you..." So, the bread of the Eucharistic celebration becomes
His Body. And if you read John chapter 6 and link it to the Gospel
accounts of the Last Supper, you'll see that the wine becomes His blood.
How this comes about we do not explain. It is a mystery.
++
> Do you think that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the
> Eucharist?
>
> Please take the Poll.
I won't go to a website and take a poll. And I don't know what you mean
by present. The bread and wine used in the eucharest are changed into
the body and blood of Christ. We Christians "put on" Christ at baptism
and receive the body and blood of Christ into our temporal bodies at
communion.
>
> www.autumnleavesministry.org
>
> Thanks, Deacon John
>
James
On your site you have the subtitle:“Serving Senior’s with the Word and
Sacraments”.
Senior's should be Seniors. Have you considered getting a good spell
checker?
Percival P. Cassidy
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
>>> Do you think that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the
>>> Eucharist?
>>>
>>> Please take the Poll.
>>>
>>> www.autumnleavesministry.org
> On your site you have the subtitle:“Serving Senior’s with the Word and
> Sacraments”.
>
> Senior's should be Seniors. Have you considered getting a good spell
> checker?
"Senior's" and "Seniors" are both perfectly good words but with
different meanings. What he needs is not a spell checker but a knowledge
of the English language (or even the American language).
Perce
James
ROFL...
James
>Re: Holy Communion?
>Do you think that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the
>Eucharist?
Hello,
The Bible says to ""Prove all things". 1 Th 5:21,
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
So just check them under a microscope.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
AGGreen
"James" <ar...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:dor9n11jdnh7m9pq8...@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave
<agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
*THEY* are life.".
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
He who despises the word will be destroyed.
- Proverbs (assorted)
Andrew W
>
>>Re: Holy Communion?
>
>>Do you think that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the
>>Eucharist?
>
> Hello,
>
> The Bible says to ""Prove all things". 1 Th 5:21,
How?
>
> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>
> So just check them under a microscope.
What are you going to check them against?
Nothing. There isn't anything you can check them against.
In the end you're just resigned to either believe or reject.
This is one of the hallmarks of a cult.
--
Andrew W.
Beware of invisible entities that coerce you into a life of worship and
sacrifice.
Beware of any being who offers you a gift in the form of death and
suffering.
Beware of any religion that makes free-mindedness a crime.
Free-mindedness is foolishness to those whose brains are perishing.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
vo...@lycos.com
Nov 12, 2:57 pm
From: Pastor Dave <1news-group-ma...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> - Find
messages by this author
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:57:29 GMT
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
>***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
"No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained it to His
disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
*THEY* are life."."
(snip)
If Christ is God where is not?
AGGreen
"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s01bn11epkkngffjo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>
> >***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>
> No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
> it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
> *THEY* are life.".
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of what
Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ. When Christ God said This
**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
symbolic, make-believe body...etc. Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization of
who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
Al
AGGreen
"Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:43759aaa$0$32557$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "James" <ar...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
> news:dor9n11jdnh7m9pq8...@4ax.com...
> > >itz...@hotmail.com
> >
> >>Re: Holy Communion?
> >
> >>Do you think that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the
> >>Eucharist?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > The Bible says to ""Prove all things". 1 Th 5:21,
>
> How?
>
> >
> > "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
> >
> > So just check them under a microscope.
>
> What are you going to check them against?
> Nothing. There isn't anything you can check them against.
> In the end you're just resigned to either believe or reject.
> This is one of the hallmarks of a cult.
***No, it is the mark of a cultist, not the mark of the True Faith.
AGGreen
Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald
"We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no
such splendor or beauty anywhere on earth. We cannot describe it to you; we
only know that God dwells there among men and that their Service surpasses
the worship of all other places..."
In the latter part of the tenth century, Vladimir the Prince of Kiev sent
envoys to various Christian centers to study their form of worship. These
are the words the envoys uttered when they reported their presence at the
celebration of the Eucharist in the Great Church of Holy Wisdom in
Constantinople. The profound experience expressed by the Russian envoys has
been one shared by many throughout the centuries who have witnessed for the
first time the beautiful and inspiring Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox
Church.
The Holy Eucharist is the oldest experience of Christian Worship as well as
the most distinctive. Eucharist comes from the Greek word which means
thanksgiving. In a particular sense, the word describes the most important
form of the Church's attitude toward all of life. The origin of the
Eucharist is traced to the Last Supper at which Christ instructed His
disciples to offer bread and wine in His memory. The Eucharist is the most
distinctive event of Orthodox worship because in it the Church gathers to
remember and celebrate the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ and,
thereby, to participate in the mystery of Salvation.
In the Orthodox Church, the Eucharist is also known as the Divine Liturgy.
The word liturgy means people's work; this description serves to emphasize
the corporate character of the Eucharist. When an Orthodox attends the
Divine Liturgy, it is not as an isolated person who comes simply to hear a
sermon.
Rather, he comes as a member of the Community of Faith who participates in
the very purpose of the Church, which is the Worship of the Holy Trinity.
Therefore, the Eucharist is truly the center of the life of the Church and
the principal means of spiritual development, both for the individual
Christian and the Church as a whole. Not only does the Eucharist embody and
express the Christian faith in a unique way, but it also enhances and
deepens our faith in the Trinity. This sacrament-mystery is the experience
toward which all the other activities of the Church are directed and from
which they receive their direction.
The Eucharist, the principal sacrament mystery of the Orthodox Church, is
not so much a text to be studied, but rather an experience of communion with
the Living God in which prayer , music, gestures, the material creation, art
and architecture come into full orchestration. The Eucharist is a
celebration of faith which touches not only the mind but also the emotions
and the senses.
Throughout the centuries, Christians have seen many dimensions in the
Eucharist. The various titles which have come to describe the rite bear
witness to the richness of its meaning. The Eucharist has been known as the
Holy offering, the Holy Mysteries, the Mystic Supper, and the Holy
Communion. The Orthodox Church recognizes the many facets of the Eucharist
and wisely refuses to over-emphasize one element to the detirement of the
others. In so doing, Orthodoxy has clearly avoided reducing the Eucharist to
a simple memorial of the Last Supper which is only occasionally observed.
Following the teachings of both Scripture and Tradition, the Orthodox Church
believes that Christ is truly present with His people in the celebration of
the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us
His Body and His Blood. We affirm that these Holy Gifts are transfigured
into the first fruits of the New Creation in which ultimately God will be
"all in all".
THREE LITURGIES
As it is celebrated today, the Divine Liturgy is a product of historical
development. The fundamental core of the liturgy dates from the time of
Christ and the Apostles. To this, prayers, hymns, and gestures have been
added throughout the centuries. The liturgy achieved a basic framework by
the ninth century.
There are three forms of the Eucharist presently in use in the Orthodox
Church:
1.. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the most frequently
celebrated.
2.. The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which is celebrated only ten times
a year.
3.. The Liturgy of St. James which is celebrated on October 23, the
feastday of the Saint. While these saints did not compose the entire liturgy
which bears their names, it is probable that they did author many of the
prayers. The structure and basic elements of the three liturgies are
similar, although there are differences in some hymns and prayers.
In addition to these Liturgies, there is also the Liturgy of the
Pre-Sanctified Gifts. This is not truly a eucharistic liturgy but rather an
evening Vesper Service followed by the distribution of Holy Communion
reserved from the previous Sunday. This liturgy is celebrated only on
weekday mornings or evenings during Lent, and on Monday, Tuesday, and
Wednesday of Holy Week, when the full Eucharist is not permitted because of
its Resurrection spirit. The Eucharist expresses the deep joy which is so
central to the Gospel.
The Divine Liturgy is properly celebrated only once a day. This custom
serves to emphasize and maintain the unity of the local congregation. The
Eucharist is always the principal Service on Sundays and Holy Days and may
be celebrated on other weekdays.
However, the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated by the priest privately,
without a congregation. The Eucharist is usually celebrated in the morning
but, with the Bishop's blessing, may be offered in the evening. The Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese has recently encouraged the celebration of the Liturgy
in the evening after Vespers, on the vigil of major Feast and Saints Days.
THE ACTIONS OF THE LITURGY
The Divine Liturgy may be divided into two major parts: the Liturgy of the
Catechumens and the Liturgy of the Faithful, which are preceded by the
Service of Preparation.
Although there are many symbolic interpretations of the Divine Liturgy, the
most fundamental meaning is found in the actions and prayers.
THE SERVICE OF PREPARATION
Prior to the beginning of the Liturgy, the priest prepares himself with
prayer and then precedes to vest himself. The vestments express his priestly
ministry as well as his office. Next, the priest goes to the Proskomide
Table which is on the left side of the Altar Table in the Sanctuary. There,
he prepares the offering of bread and wine for the Liturgy. Ideally, the
leavened loaves of bread, and the wine from which the offering is taken, are
prepared by members of the congregation. The elements are presented to the
priest before the service, together with the names of those persons, living
and dead, who are to be remembered during the Divine Liturgy. The offering
symbolically represents the entire Church gathered about Christ, the Lamb of
God.
THE LITURGY OF THE CATECHUMENS
The Divine Liturgy begins with the solemn declaration: "Blessed be the
Kingdom of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit now and for
ever more." With these words we are reminded that in the Divine Liturgy the
Church becomes a real manifestation of God's Kingdom on earth.
Since the first part of the Liturgy was designed originally for the
Catechumens, those being schooled in the faith, had a very instructive
quality. The Eucharist also has elements which are in common with other
Services. We gather as Christians who share a common faith in the Holy
Trinity. We sing and pray as a people united in Christ, who are not bound by
time, space, or social barriers.
The Little Entrance is the central action of the first part of the Liturgy.
A procession takes place in which the priest carries the Book of Gospels
from the sanctuary into the nave. The procession directs our attention to
the Scripture and to the presence of Christ in the Gospel. The entrance
leads to the Epistle lesson, the Gospel, and the Sermon.
THE LITURGY OF THE FAITHFUL
In the early Church, only those who were baptized and not in a state of sin
were permitted to remain for this most solemn part of the Liturgy. With the
Great Entrance marking the beginning of this part of the Liturgy, the
offering of bread and wine is brought by the priest from the Preparation
Table, through the nave, and to the Altar Table. Before the offering can
proceed, however, we are called upon to love one another so that we may
perfectly confess our faith. In the early Church, the Kiss of Peace was
exchanged at this point. After the symbolic kiss of Peace, we join together
in professing our Faith through the words of the Creed.
Only now can we properly offer our gifts of bread and wine to the Father as
our Lord directed us to do in His memory. This offering is one of great joy,
for through it we remember the mighty actions of God through which we have
received the gift of salvation, and especially the Life, Death, and
Resurrection of Christ. We invoke the Holy Spirit upon ourselves and upon
our offering, asking the Father that they become for us the Body and Blood
of Christ. Through our thanking and remembering the Holy Spirit reveals the
presence of the Risen Christ in our midst.
The priest comes from the altar with the Holy Gifts, inviting the
congregation to draw near with reverence of God, with faith, and with love."
Our sharing in the Eucharist Gifts not only expresses our fellowship with
one another, but also our unity with the Father in His Kingdom. Individuals
approach the Holy Gifts and receive the Eucharistic bread and wine from the
common chalice. The priest distributes the Holy Gifts by means of a
communion spoon. Since the Holy Communion is an expression of our Faith,
reception of the Holy Gifts is open only to those who are baptized,
chrismated, and practicing members of the Orthodox Church.
The Liturgy comes to an end with prayer of Thanksgiving and the Benediction.
At the conclusion of the Eucharist, the congregation comes forward to
receive a portion of the liturgical bread which was not used for the
offering.
Copyright: © 1983-1996 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Department of
Religious Education
AGGreen
The central place among the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church is held by the
Holy Eucharist - the precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In
modern times the Holy Eucharist is celebrated in the Orthodox Church at the
following Liturgies:
1. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - the usual Liturgy of Sundays and
Weekdays.
2. The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great - celebrated on the Sundays of Great
Lent and certain Feast Days.
3. The Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord - celebrated on October
23 (St. James' Day) in certain places only (e.g., Jerusalem).
4. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts - celebrated on Weekdays of Great
Lent and Holy Week. (At this Liturgy there is no consecration of the Holy
Gifts, but rather Communion is given from the Gifts consecrated on the
previous Sunday - hence Pre-sanctified.)
The Savior Himself said, I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall
not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst... If any one eats
of this bread he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the
life of the world is My flesh (John 6:35,51). At the Last Supper, Jesus took
bread, and blessed, and broke it, and give it to the disciples and said,
'Take, eat; this is My body'. And He took a cup, and when He had given
thanks He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is My
blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness
of sins' (Matt. 26:26-28; cf. Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13; 1 Cor. 11:23-30).
This institution of the Eucharist by our Lord is the means whereby we become
united with Christ and with each other as a church, for, as St. Paul says,
the goal of every Christian is to grow up in every way into Him Who is the
head, into Christ, from Whom the whole body, joined and knit together by
every joint with which it is supplied - makes bodily growth and upbuilds
itself in love (Eph. 4:15-16). This is so since Christ is the head of the
Church, His body, and is Himself its Savior (Eph. 5:23). We become part of
the Mystical Body of Christ by our communion of the Holy Eucharist. As St.
Paul says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in
the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in
the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one
body, for we all partake of the one bread (1 Cor. 10:16-17).
Only by belonging to the Church, or in other words, being in communion with
the very essence of Christ through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, can
one attain salvation unto eternal life. Thus we can answer the question,
"Who can be regarded as a member of the Church of Christ?" by saying, "All
those who have been properly baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the true Son of God
come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3), and are united by the grace of the
Sacraments - in particular the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist administered
by the Priesthood of Apostolic Succession."
The unity of all Christian believers in the Holy Eucharist is strongly
stressed by the Fathers of the Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his
Letter to the Ephesians reminds them that "all of you to the last, without
exception, through God's grace are united in common faith and in Jesus
Christ..., so obey the Bishop and the Presbyters in complete harmony,
breaking one bread, this remedy for immortality." Moreover, the Eucharist is
not only a testament to the internal and external unity of the Church, but
is also the means for strengthening this unity. Therefore St. Ignatius
stresses more frequent Communion: "Try to gather more often for the
Eucharist and glorification of God. For if you gather together often, the
forces of Satan are overthrown, and his destructive deeds are wrecked by
your single-hearted faith" [To the Ephesians].
The union of believers with Christ in the Eucharist is also stressed by St.
Cyprian of Carthage who, speaking of the mixing of water and wine in the
cup, gives an extended meaning to this mixing: "The people are designated by
water, the blood of Christ by wine. Mixing water and wine in the cup shows
the people's union with Christ, the believers' union with Him in Whom they
believe. Water and wine after mixing in the Lord's Cup are so inseparably
and closely united that they cannot be separated one from another. In just
this way nothing can separate from Christ the Church, that is, the people
that make up the Church, firmly and unshakeably abiding in faith and joined
by eternal, indivisible love" [Letter to Cacaelius].
This is reaffirmed in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great when, after the
blessing of the Holy Gifts, we pray that the Heavenly Father "unite us all,
as many as are partakers in the one bread and one cup, one with another in
communion with the One Holy Spirit." Thus we can say that whereas entrance
into the Church begins with Holy Baptism, its fulfilment lies in the Holy
Eucharist.
Orthodox Theology sees the Holy Eucharist as a sacrifice and this is
affirmed in the words of the Priest, when he says, during the Eucharistic
Canon, "Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for
all." The sacrifice offered at the Eucharist is Christ Himself, but He Who
brings the sacrifice is also Christ. Christ is, at one and the same time,
High Priest and Sacrifice. In the prayer before the Great Entrance, the
Priest prays: "For Thou art the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and
the Received, 0 Christ our God...." This Eucharist is offered to God - the
Holy Trinity, and so if we ask the threefold question, What is offered? By
Whom is it offered? To Whom is it offered? we say in answer, Christ. In
addition, the sacrifice is offered "on behalf of all and for all," for it is
a sacrifice of redemption which is brought for the living and the dead.
According to St. Nicholas Cabasilas, a medieval Orthodox teacher, the
Church's understanding of the Eucharist is, as follows: "In the first place,
the sacrifice is not only an enactment or a symbol, but a real sacrifice. In
the second, that which is sacrificed is not bread, but the very Body of
Christ. In the third place, the Lamb of God was immolated only once and for
all times. The Eucharist sacrifice consists not of the real or blood
sacrifice of the Lamb, but in the transformation of bread into the
sacrificed Lamb" [Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 32].
According to the Orthodox Church, then, the Eucharist is not just a reminder
of Christ's sacrifice or of its enactment, but it is a real sacrifice. On
the other hand, however, it is not a new sacrifice, nor a repetition of the
Sacrifice of the Cross upon Golgotha. The events of Christ's Sacrifice - the
Incarnation, the Institution of the Eucharist, the Crucifixion, Resurrection
and Ascension into Heaven, are not repeated during the Eucharist, yet they
become a present reality. As one Orthodox theologian has said, "During the
Liturgy we are projected in time to that place where eternity and time
intersect, and then we become the contemporaries of these events that we are
calling to mind" [P. N. Evdokimov, L'Orthodoxie, p. 241]. Thus the Eucharist
and all the Holy Liturgy is, in structure, a sacrificial service.
How all this takes place is a mystery. As Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow
wrote in his Longer Catechism, concerning the changing of the bread and wine
into the Body and Blood of Christ, "this none can understand but God; but
only this much is signified, that the bread truly, really and substantially
becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the
Lord." Furthermore, as St. John of Damascus states, "If you enquire how this
happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy
Spirit.... We know nothing more than this, that the Word of God is true,
active and omnipotent, but in the manner of operation unsearchable" [On the
Orthodox Faith, IV, 13].
Concerning the Communion itself, in the Orthodox Church both laity and
clergy always receive Communion of both the Body and Blood of Christ. The
Communion is given to the laity in a spoon containing a small piece of the
Holy Bread together with a portion of the wine, and it is received standing.
A strict fast is observed, usually from the night before, and nothing can be
eaten or drunk after waking in the morning before Communion. As a theologian
of the Church has well put it, "You know that those who invite the Emperor
to their house, first clean their home. So you, if you want to bring god
into your bodily home for the illumination of your life, must first sanctify
your body by fasting" [Gennadius, Hundred Chapters].
After the final blessing of the Liturgy, the faithful come up to kiss the
Hand Cross held by the Priest and those who have not communed receive a
small piece of bread, called the Antidoron, which, although blessed, was not
consecrated, having been taken from the same bread(s) from which the Lamb
was taken in the Proskomedia. This bread is given out as an expression of
Christian fellowship and love (agape).
Milan
"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s01bn11epkkngffjo...@4ax.com...
> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>
> >***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>
That's why I had to quit going to church. Cannibalism is against my
principles.
regards
Milan
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>>itz...@hotmail.com
>
>>Re: Holy Communion?
>
>>Do you think that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the
>>Eucharist?
>
>Hello,
>
>The Bible says to ""Prove all things". 1 Th 5:21,
>
>"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>
>So just check them under a microscope.
>
>
>Sincerely, James
>
your own religon.
The Bible clearly shows that Jesus is God.
Not "a" god as your religon's bad translation puts it, but He is God.
_Check_ your own religon, James.
In Jesus,
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>
ear when He said it; He is there _metaphorically_, not physically.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>
>news:s01bn11epkkngffjo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>>
>> No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
>> it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>> *THEY* are life.".
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
>
>***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of what
>Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
>embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ.
If you embraced Roman Catholicism you embraced heresy and manmade
religion, nothing more.
You should not bother looking at "protestantism" or "catholicism," but
should look for Jesus in _Christianity_ and the Bible. You will find
the Real Jesus there, not anywhere else.
>When Christ God said This
>**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
>symbolic, make-believe body...etc.
He also said "I _AM_" the way and truth and the light."
Does that mean He is a bunch of blacktop, a philosophical idea, and a
bunch of radiation?
No, you are trying to make a metaphor into something it is not.
>Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
>Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
>interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization of
>who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
>
I pity your thinking, Al. Christ's body, His church (which
encompasses ALL Christians, not just one or two groups of them) has
known that the physical bodyparts are NOT there for all the 2,000
years or so that Christ's church has been around.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>
groups about the 11th century to form a new religon?
parakaleo
Eric Brze
Jehovah.
James
Bzzt. Wrong. The Church has ALWAYS taught that the bread and wine become
the REAL BODY and the REAL BLOOD of our Lord. This is not some
Johnny-come-lately-Protestant make-it-up-as-you-go-along interpretation
of the scriptures. Long before there was even a glimmer of Protestant
theology and misinterpretations... 1500 years of Church history... the
Church taught the REAL Presence in the Eucharist. So... I'll stick with
the Church as opposed what any one of the 32,000+ Prot denominations
have to say on the matter.
James
your Protestant make it up as you go along faith is so muddled as to
render it nigh to useless. To which of the thousands upon thousands of
conflicting interpretations do you subscribe?
James
Before you step up to your soapbox, I strongly suggest you educate yourself.
AGGreen
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:fl4cn15murui5589v...@4ax.com...
> >***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of
what
> >Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
> >embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ.
>
> If you embraced Roman Catholicism you embraced heresy and manmade
> religion, nothing more.
***I did not. I am not Roman Catholic.
>
> You should not bother looking at "protestantism" or "catholicism," but
> should look for Jesus in _Christianity_ and the Bible. You will find
> the Real Jesus there, not anywhere else.
***The Holy Orthodox Church (which has no affiliation or connection with
Roman Catholicism) is the Body of Christ. Wghat the Church teaches is
Christ's teaching because the Body of Christ is Christ. there is nothing in
the teaching of the originalo church founded by Christ God at Pentecost
which is contrary to anything written in Holy Scripture.
>
> >When Christ God said This
> >**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
> >symbolic, make-believe body...etc.
>
> He also said "I _AM_" the way and truth and the light."
> Does that mean He is a bunch of blacktop, a philosophical idea, and a
> bunch of radiation?
***You are mixing apples and oranges and coming up with a heretical new
juice. "I AM" does not contradict Christ's statement that the Bread and Wine
are His Body and Prescious Blood.
>
> No, you are trying to make a metaphor into something it is not.
***O, so Christ's words are metaphors to be interpreted only as you deem
fit. Sorry, the Body of Christ, The Church, is Chriost's sole arbitor of
what He meant by his sayings. The Church has ALWAYS interpreted Christ's
words at the institution of the Eucharist to mean EXACTLY what He
said...nothing more, nothing less.
>
> >Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
> >Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
> >interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization
of
> >who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
> >
> I pity your thinking, Al. Christ's body, His church (which
> encompasses ALL Christians,
***No, it does not. There are more than 30,000 protestant denominations,
cults, associations, organizations, etc. throughout the world. But, Christ
founded but ONE Church, not 30,000.
not just one or two groups of them) has
> known that the physical bodyparts are NOT there for all the 2,000
> years or so that Christ's church has been around.
***Orthodoxy acknowledges the existence of other religious belief systems
claiming to be Christian. But Christ founded but ONE Church...one way of
thinking, one way of salvation. ONLY Holy Orthodoxy has preserved untainted
and unchanged that which Christ founded and the Holy Apostles took and
taught in many lands.
Al
AGGreen
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:9i4cn1ha094lcgg0u...@4ax.com...
***Now we know you are not Orthodox.
AGGreen
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:r15cn156f3hlpji04...@4ax.com...
***Absolutely not. The Great Schism of 1054, which had been brewing and
fermenting for centuries, was accomplished by the errant Roman Patriarchate
when it sent Cardinal Umberto to the Hagia Sophia in Constnatinople to cast
off the Eastern Patriarchates. From that moment on, the Roman Patriarchate,
which became known as the Roman Catholic church a few centuries later, has
gone it alone. You should know, too, that none of the heresies of the Roman
Catholic Church are subscribed to in any way by the Holy Faith of Jesus
Christ...Eastern Orthodoxy.
Al
AGGreen
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tmdc0F...@individual.net...
***An uneducated action and a dumb response. You have not a clue. So, since
Christ God said that the bread and wine were His Body and Blood, did that
indicate that Christ was canabilistic?
Al
AGGreen
-Bishop Kallistos Ware from his book, The Orthodox Church
One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in
the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople, Cardinal
Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made
their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull
of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed
through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the
words: 'Let God look and judge.' A deacon ran out after him in great
distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was
dropped in the street.
It is this incident which has conventionally been taken to mark the
beginning of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west.
But the schism, as historians now generally recognize, is not really an
event whose beginning can be exactly dated. It was something that came about
gradually, as the result of a long and complicated process, starting well
before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after.
In this long and complicated process, many different influences were at
work. The schism was conditioned by cultural, political, and economic
factors; yet its fundamental cause was not secular but theological. In the
last resort it was over matters of doctrine that east and west quarreled -
two matters in particular: the Papal claims and the Filioque. But before we
look more closely at these two major differences, and before we consider the
actual course of the schism, something must be said about the wider
background. Long before there was an open and formal schism between east and
west, the two sides had become strangers to one another; and in attempting
to understand how and why the communion of Christendom was broken, we must
start with this fact of increasing estrangement.
When Paul and the other Apostles travelled around the Mediterranean world,
they moved within a closely knit political and cultural unity: the Roman
Empire. This Empire embraced many different national groups, often with
languages and dialects of their own. But all these groups were governed by
the same Emperor; there was a broad Greco-Roman civilization in which
educated people throughout the Empire shared; either Greek or Latin was
understood almost everywhere in the Empire, and many could speak both
languages. These facts greatly assisted the early Church in its missionary
work.
But in the centuries that followed, the unity of the Mediterranean world
gradually disappeared. The political unity was the first to go. From the end
of the third century the Empire, while still theoretically one, was usually
divided into two parts, an eastern and a western, each under its own
Emperor. Constantine furthered this process of separation by founding a
second imperial capital in the east, alongside Old Rome in Italy. Then came
the barbarian invasions at the start of the fifth century: apart from Italy,
much of which remained within the Empire for some time longer, the west was
carved up among barbarian chiefs. The Byzantines never forgot the ideals of
Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and still regarded their Empire as in theory
universal; but Justinian was the last Emperor who seriously attempted to
bridge the gulf between theory and fact, and his conquests in the west were
soon abandoned. The political unity of the Greek east and the Latin west was
destroyed by the barbarian invasions, and never permanently restored.
During the late sixth and the seventh centuries, east and west were further
isolated from each other by the Avar and Slav invasions of the Balkan
peninsula; lllyricum, which used to serve as a bridge, became in this way a
barrier between Byzantium and the Latin world. The severance was carried a
stage further by the rise of Islam: the Mediterranean, which the Romans once
called mare nostrum, 'our sea', now passed largely into Arab control.
Cultural and economic contacts between the eastern and western Mediterranean
never entirely ceased, but they became far more difficult.
The Iconoclast controversy contributed still further to the division between
Byzantium and the west. The Popes were firm supporters of the Iconodule
standpoint, and so for many decades they found themselves out of communion
with the Iconoclast Emperor and Patriarch at Constantinople. Cut off from
Byzantium and in need of help, in 754 Pope Stephen turned northwards and
visited the Frankish ruler, Pepin. This marked the first step in a decisive
change of orientation so far as the Papacy was concerned. Hitherto Rome had
continued in many ways to be part of the Byzantine world, but now it passed
increasingly under Frankish influence, although the effects of this
reorientation did not become fully apparent until the middle of the eleventh
century.
Pope Stephen's visit to Pepin was followed half a century later by a much
more dramatic event. On Christmas Day in the year 800 Pope Leo III crowned
Charles the Great, King of the Franks, as Emperor. Charlemagne sought
recognition from the ruler at Byzantium, but without success; for the
Byzantines, still adhering to the principle of imperial unity, regarded
Charlemagne as an intruder and the Papal coronation as an act of schism
within the Empire. The creation of a Holy Roman Empire in the west, instead
of drawing Europe closer together, only served to alienate east and west
more than before.
The cultural unity lingered on, but in a greatly attenuated form. Both in
east and west, people of learning still lived within the classical tradition
which the Church had taken over and made its own; but as time went on they
began to interpret this tradition in increasingly divergent ways. Matters
were made more difficult by problems of language. The days when educated
people were bilingual were over. By the year 450 there were very few in
western Europe who could read Greek, and after 600, although Byzantium still
called itself the Roman Empire, it was rare for a Byzantine to speak Latin,
the language of the Romans. Photius, the greatest scholar in ninth-century
Constantinople, could not read Latin; and in 864 a 'Roman' Emperor at
Byzantium, Michael III, even called the language in which Virgil once wrote
'a barbarian and Scythic tongue'. If Greeks wished to read Latin works or
vice versa, they could do so only in translation, and usually they did not
trouble to do even that: Psellus, an eminent Greek savant of the eleventh
century, had so sketchy a knowledge of Latin literature that he confused
Caesar with Cicero. Because they no longer drew upon the same sources nor
read the same books, Greek east and Latin west drifted more and more apart.
It was an ominous but significant precedent that the cultural renaissance in
Charlemagne's Court should have been marked at its outset by a strong
anti-Greek prejudice. In fourth-century Europe there had been one Christian
civilization, in thirteenth century Europe there were two. Perhaps it is in
the reign of Charlemagne that the schism of civilizations first becomes
clearly apparent. The Byzantines for their part remained enclosed in their
own world of ideas, and did little to meet the west half way. Alike in the
ninth and in later centuries they usually failed to take western learning as
seriously as it deserved. They dismissed all Franks as barbarians and
nothing more.
These political and cultural factors could not but affect the life of the
Church, and make it harder to maintain religious unity. Cultural and
political estrangement can lead only too easily to ecclesiastical disputes,
as may be seen from the case of Charlemagne. Refused recognition in the
political sphere by the Byzantine Emperor, he was quick to retaliate with a
charge of heresy against the Byzantine Church: he denounced the Greeks for
not using the Filioque in the Creed (of this we shall say more in a moment)
and he declined to accept the decisions of the seventh Ecumenical Council.
It is true that Charlemagne only knew of these decisions through a faulty
translation which seriously distorted their true meaning; but he seems in
any case to have been semi-lconoclast in his views.
The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume
different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church
order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain
difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were
many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong
sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature
of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the
Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other
hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so
that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it
accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very
active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a
college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.
This initial divergence in outlook was made more acute by political
developments. As was only natural, the barbarian invasions and the
consequent breakdown of the Empire in the west served greatly to strengthen
the autocratic structure of the western Church. In the east there was a
strong secular head, the Emperor, to uphold the civilized order and to
enforce law. In the west, after the advent of the barbarians, there was only
a plurality of warring chiefs, all more or less usurpers. For the most part
it was the Papacy alone which could act as a centre of unity, as an element
of continuity and stability in the spiritual and political life of western
Europe. By force of circumstances, the Pope assumed a part which the Greek
Patriarchs were not called to play, issuing commands not only to his
ecclesiastical subordinates but to secular rulers as well. The western
Church gradually became centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four
Patriarchates of the east (except possibly in Egypt). Monarchy in the west;
in the east collegiality.
Nor was this the only effect which the barbarian invasions had upon the life
of the Church. In Byzantium there were many educated laymen who took an
active interest in theology. The 'lay theologian' has always been an
accepted figure in Orthodoxy: some of the most learned Byzantine Patriarch
Photius, for example - were laymen before their appointment to the
Patriarchate. But in the west the only effective education which survived
through the Dark Ages was provided by the Church for its clergy. Theology
became the preserve of the priests, since most of the laity could not even
read, much less comprehend the technicalities of theological discussion.
Orthodoxy, while assigning to the episcopate a special teaching office, has
never known this sharp division between clergy and laity which arose in the
western Middle Ages.
Relations between eastern and western Christendom were also made more
difficult by the lack of a common language. Because the two sides could no
longer communicate easily with one another, and each could no longer read
what the other wrote, misunderstandings arose much more easily. The shared
'universe of discourse' was progressively lost.
East and west were becoming strangers to one another, and this was something
from which both were likely to suffer. In the early Church there had been
unity in the faith, but a diversity of theological schools. From the start
Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian Mystery in their own
way. At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that the Latin
approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative; Latin thought was
influenced by juridical ideas, by the concepts of Roman law, while the
Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the
Holy Liturgy. When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity
of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons; when reflecting on
the Crucifixion, Latins thought primarily of Christ the Victim, Greeks of
Christ the Victor; Latins talked more of redemption, Greeks of deification;
and so on. Like the schools of Antioch and Alexandria within the east, these
two distinctive approaches were not in themselves contradictory; each served
to supplement the other, and each had its place in the fullness of Catholic
tradition. But now that the two sides were becoming strangers to one
another - with no political and little cultural unity, with no common
language - there was a danger that each side would follow its own approach
in isolation and push it to extremes, forgetting the value in the other
point of view.
We have spoken of the different doctrinal approaches in east and west; but
there were two points of doctrine where the two sides no longer supplemented
one another, but entered into direct conflict - the Papal claims and the
Filioque. The factors which we have mentioned in previous paragraphs were
sufficient in themselves to place a serious strain upon the unity of
Christendom. Yet for all that, unity might still have been maintained, had
there not been these two further points of difficulty. To them we must now
turn. It was not until the middle of the ninth century that the full extent
of the disagreement first came properly into the open, but the two
differences themselves date back considerably earlier.
We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the
different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the
centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced
by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute
power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did
not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did
not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power
of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as
he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was
bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not
the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed
infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the
faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council
representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different
conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.
The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a
twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst
the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most
honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from
us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does
not belong to her office . . . How shall we accept decrees from her that
have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If
the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder
at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he
wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking
counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood,
or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not
the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother
of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.'
That was how an Orthodox felt in the twelfth century, when the whole
question had come out into the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude
to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by
controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the
Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being
partially concealed.
The second great difficulty was the Filioque. The dispute involved the words
about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Originally the
Creed ran: 'I believe . . . in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and together glorified.' This, the original form, is recited
unchanged by the east to this day. But the west inserted an extra phrase
'and from the Son' (in Latin, Filioque), so that the Creed now reads 'who
proceeds from the Father and the Son'. It is not certain when and where this
addition was first made, but it seems to have originated in Spain, as a
safeguard against Arianism. At any rate the Spanish Church interpolated the
Filioque at the third Council of Toledo (589), if not before. From Spain the
addition spread to France and thence to Germany, where it was welcomed by
Charlemagne and adopted at the semi-lconoclast Council of Frankfort (794).
It was writers at Charlemagne's court who first made the Filioque into an
issue of controversy, accusing the Greeks of heresy because they recited the
Creed in its original form. But Rome, with typical conservatism, continued
to use the Creed without the Filioque until the start of the eleventh
century. In 808 Pope Leo 111 wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although
he himself believed the Filioque to be doctrinally sound, yet he considered
it a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed. Leo deliberately had
the Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on silver plaques and set up in
St Peter's. For the time being Rome acted as a mediator between the Franks
and Byzantium.
It was not until 860 that the Greeks paid much attention to the Filioque,
but once they did so, their reaction was sharply critical. The Orthodox
objected (and still object) to this addition to the Creed, for two reasons.
First, the Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and if any
change is to be made in it, this can only be done by an Ecumenical Council.
The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as
Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the
Church. In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be
theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father
alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as
well. There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is
not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological
opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained. But even
those who take this more moderate view still regard it as an unauthorized
addition.
Besides these two major issues, the Papacy and the Filioque, there were
certain lesser matters of Church worship and discipline which caused trouble
between east and west: the Greeks allowed married clergy, the Latins
insisted on priestly celibacy; the two sides had different rules of fasting;
the Greeks used leavened bread in the Eucharist, the Latins unleavened bread
Around 850 east and west were still in full communion with one another and
still formed one Church. Cultural and political divisions had combined to
bring about an increasing estrangement, but there was no open schism. The to
sides had different conceptions of Papal authority and recited the Creed in
different forms, but these questions had not yet been brought fully into the
open.
But in 1190 Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch and a great authority on
Canon Law, looked at matters very differently:
For many years [he does not say how many] the western Church has been
divided in spiritual communion from the other four Patriarchates and has
become alien to the Orthodox ... So no Latin should be given communion
unless he first declares that he will abstain from the doctrines and customs
that separate him from us, and that he will be subject to the Canons of the
Church, in union with the Orthodox.'
In Balsamon's eyes, communion had been broken; there was a definite schism
between east and west. The two no longer formed one visible Church. In this
transition from estrangement to schism, four incidents are of particular
importance: the quarrel between Photius and Pope Nicolas I (usually known as
the 'Photian schism': the east would prefer to call it the 'schism of
Nicolas'); the incident of the Diptychs in 1009; the attempt at
reconciliation in 1053-4 and its disastrous sequel; and the Crusades. From
Estrangement to Schism (858-1204)
In 858, fifteen years after the triumph of icons under Theodora, a new
Patriarch of Constantinople was appointed - Photius, known to the Orthodox
Church as St Photius the Great. He has been termed 'the most distinguished
thinker, the most outstanding politician, and the most skillful diplomat
ever to hold office as Patriarch of Constantinople.' Soon after his
accession he became involved in a dispute with Pope Nicolas I (858-67). The
previous Patriarch, St Ignatius, had been exiled by the Emperor and while in
exile had resigned under pressure. The supporters of Ignatius, declining to
regard this resignation as valid, considered Photius a usurper. When Photius
sent a letter to the Pope announcing his accession, Nicolas decided that
before recognizing Photius he would look further Into the quarrel between
the new Patriarch and the Ignatian party. Accordingly in 861 he sent legates
to Constantinople.
Photius had no desire to start a dispute with the Papacy. He treated the
legates with great deference, inviting them to preside at a council in
Constantinople, which was to settle the issue between Ignatius and himself.
The legates agreed, and together with the rest of the council they decided
that Photius was the legitimate Patriarch. But when his legates returned to
Rome, Nicolas declared that they had exceeded their powers, and he disowned
their decision. He then proceeded to retry the case himself at Rome: a
council held under his presidency In 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch,
and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity. The
Byzantines took no notice of this condemnation, and sent no answer to the
Pope's letters. Thus an open breach existed between the Churches of Rome and
Constantinople.
The dispute clearly involved the Papal claims. Nicolas was a great reforming
Pope, with an exalted idea of the prerogatives of his see, and he had
already done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the
west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also: as he
put it in a letter of 865, the Pope is endowed with authority 'over all the
earth, that is, over every Church'. This was precisely what the Byzantines
were not prepared to grant. Confronted with the dispute between Photius and
Ignatius, Nicolas thought that he saw a golden opportunity to enforce his
claim to universal jurisdiction: he would make both parties submit to his
arbitration. But he realized that Photius had submitted voluntarily to the
inquiry by the Papal legates, and that his action could not be taken as a
recognition of Papal supremacy. This (among other reasons) was why Nicolas
had cancelled his legates' decisions. The Byzantines for their part were
willing to allow appeals to Rome, but only under the specific conditions
laid down on of the Council of Sardica (343). This Canon states that a
bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope,
if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be
conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces
adjacent to that of the condemned bishop. Nicolas, so the Byzantines felt,
in reversing the decisions of his legates and demanding a retrial at Rome
itself, was going far beyond the terms of this.Canon. They regarded his
behaviour as an unwarrantable and uncanonical interference in the affairs of
another Patriarchate.
Soon not only the Papal claims but the Filioque became involved in the
dispute. Byzantium and the west (chiefly the Germans) were both launching
great missionary ventures among the Slavs.' The two lines of missionary
advance, from the east and from the west, soon converged; and when Greek and
German missionaries found themselves at work in the same land, it was
difficult to avoid a conflict, since the two missions were run on widely
different principles. The clash naturally brought to the fore the question
of the Filioque, used by the Germans in the Creed, but not used by the
Greeks. The chief point of trouble was Bulgaria, a country which Rome and
Constantinople alike were anxious to add to their sphere of jurisdiction.
The Khan Boris was at first inclined to ask the German missionaries for
baptism: threatened, however, with a Byzantine invasion, he changed his
policy and around 865 accepted baptism from Greek clergy. But Boris wanted
the Church in Bulgaria to be independent, and when Constantinople refused to
grant autonomy, he turned to the west in hope of better terms. Given a free
hand in Bulgaria, the Latin missionaries promptly launched a violent attack
on the Greeks, singling out the points where Byzantine practice differed
from their own: married clergy, rules of fasting, and above all the
Filioque. At Rome itself the Filioque was still not in use, but Nicolas gave
full support to the Germans when they insisted upon its insertion in
Bulgaria. The Papacy, which in 808 had mediated between the Franks and the
Greeks, was now neutral no longer.
Photius was naturally alarmed by the extension of German influence in the
Balkans, on the very borders of the Byzantine Empire; but he was much more
alarmed by the question of the Filioque, now brought forcibly to his
attention. In 867 he took action. He wrote an Encyclical Letter to the other
Patriarchs of the east, denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those
who used it with heresy. Photius has often been blamed for writing this
letter: even the great Roman Catholic historian Francis Dvornik who is in
general highly sympathetic to Photius, calls his action on this occasion a
futile attack, and says 'the lapse was inconsiderate, hasty, and big with
fatal consequences'. But if Photius really considered the Filioque
heretical, what else could he do except speak his mind? It must also be
remembered that it was not Photius who first made the Filioque a matter of
controversy, but Charlernagne and his scholars seventy years before: the
west was the original aggressor, not the east. Photius followed up his
letter by summoning a council to Constantinople, which declared Pope Nicolas
excommunicate, terming him 'a heretic who ravages the vineyard of the Lord'.
At this critical point in the dispute, the whole situation suddenly changed.
In this same year (867) Photius was deposed from the Patriarchate by the
Emperor. Ignatius became Patriarch once more, and communion with Rome was
restored. In 869-70 another council was held at Constantinople, known as the
'Anti-Photian Council', which condemned and anathematized Photius, reversing
the decisions of 867. This council, later reckoned in the west as the eighth
Ecumenical Council, opened with the unimpressive total of 12 bishops,
although numbers at subsequent sessions rose to 103.
But there were further changes to come. The 869-70 council requested the
Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not surprisingly
he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Realizing that Rome would allow him less independence than Byzantium, Boris
accepted this decision. From 870, then, the German missionaries were
expelled and the Filioque was heard no more in the confines of Bulgaria. Nor
was this all. At Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius were reconciled to one
another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once more succeeded him as
Patriarch. In 879 yet another council was held in Constantinople, attended
by 383 bishops - a notable contrast with the meagre total at the
anti-Photian gathering ten years previously. The council of 869 was
anathematized and all condemnations of Photius were withdrawn; these
decisions were accepted without protest at Rome. So Photius ended
victorious, recognized by Rome and ecclesiastically master of Bulgaria.
Until recently it was thought -hat there was a second 'Photian schism', but
Dr Dvornik has proved with devastating conclusiveness that this second
schism is a myth: in Photius' later period of office (877-86) communion
between Constantinople and the Papacy remained unbroken. The Pope at this
time, John VIII (872-82), was no friend to the Franks and did not press the
question of the Filioque, nor did he attempt to enforce the Papal claims in
the east. Perhaps he recognized how seriously the policy of Nicolas had
endangered the unity of Christendom.
Thus the schism was outwardly healed, but no real solution had been reached
concerning the two great points of difference which the dispute between
Nicolas and Photius had forced into the open. Matters had been patched up,
and that was all.
Photius, always honoured in the east as a saint, a leader of the Church, and
a theologian, has in the past been regarded by the west with less
enthusiasm, as the author of a schism and little else. His good qualities
are now more widely appreciated. 'If I am right in my conclusions,' so Dr
Dvornik ends his monumental study, 'we shall be free once more to recognize
in Photius a great Churchman, a learned humanist, and a genuine Christian,
generous enough to forgive his enemies, and to take the first step towards
reconciliation.
At the beginning of the eleventh century there was fresh trouble over the
Filioque. The Papacy at last adopted the addition: at the coronation of
Emperor Henry 11 at Rome in 1014, the Creed was sung in its interpolated
form. Five years earlier, in 1009, the newly-elected Pope Sergius IV sent a
letter to Constantinople which may have contained the Filioque, although
this is not certain. Whatever the reason, the Patriarch of Constantinople,
also called Sergius, did not include the new Pope's name in the Diptychs:
these are lists, kept by each Patriarch, which contain the names of the
other Patriarchs, living and departed, whom he recognizes as orthodox. The
Diptychs are a visible sign of the unity of the Church, and deliberately to
omit a person's name from them is tantamount to a declaration that one is
not in communion with him. After 1009 the Pope's name did not appear again
in the Diptychs of Constantinople; technically, therefore, the Churches of
Rome and Constantinople were out of communion from that date. But it would
be unwise to press this technicality too far. Diptychs were frequently
incomplete, and so do not form an infallible guide to Church relations. The
Constantinopolitan lists before 1009 often lacked the Pope's name, simply
because new Popes at their accession failed to notify the east. The omission
in 1009 aroused no comment at Rome, and even at Constantinople people
quickly forgot why and when the Pope's name had first been dropped from the
Diptychs.
As the eleventh century proceeded, new factors brought relations between the
Papacy and the eastern Patriarchates to a further crisis. The previous
century had been a period of grave instability and confusion for the see of
Rome, a century which Cardinal Baronius justly termed an age of iron and
lead in the history of the Papacy. But under German influence Rome now
reformed itself, and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope
Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never
before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to
universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made. The Byzantines on their side
had grown accustomed to dealing with a Papacy that was for the most part
weak and disorganized, and so they found it difficult to adapt themselves to
the new situation. Matters were made worse by political factors, such as the
military aggression of the Normans in Byzantine Italy, and the commercial
encroachments of the Italian maritime cities in the eastern Mediterranean
during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
In 1054 there was a severe quarrel. The Normans had been forcing the Greeks
in Byzantine Italy to conform to Latin usages; the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in return demanded that the Latin
churches at Constantinople should adopt Greek practices, and in 1052, when
they refused, he closed them. This was perhaps harsh, but as Patriarch he
was fully entitled to act in this manner. Among the practices to which
Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use of
'azymes' or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, an issue which had not
figured in the dispute of the ninth century. In 1053, however, Cerularius
took up a more conciliatory attitude and wrote to Pope Leo IX, offering to
restore the Pope's name to the Diptychs. In response to this offer, and to
settle the disputed questions of Greek and Latin usages, Leo in 1054 sent
three legates to Constantinople, the chief of them being Humbert, Bishop of
Silva Candida. The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he
and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper, whose mutual
encounter was not likely to promote good will among Christians. The legates,
when they called on Cerularius, did not create a favourable impression.
Thrusting a letter from the Pope at him, they retired without giving the
usual salutations; the letter itself, although signed by Leo, had in fact
been drafted by Humbert, and was distinctly unfriendly in tone. After this
the Patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually
Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius
on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom: among other ill-founded
charges in this document, Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the
Filioque from the Creed! Humbert promptly left Constantinople without
offering any further explanation of his act, and on returning to Italy he
represented the whole incident as a great victory for the see of Rome.
Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the
Roman Church as such). The attempt at reconciliation left matters worse than
before.
But even after 1054 friendly relations between east and west continued. The
two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of
separation between them, and people on both sides still hoped that the
misunderstandings could be cleared up without too much difficulty. The
dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in east and west
were largely unaware. It was the Crusades which made the schism definitive:
they introduced a new spirit of hatred and bitterness, and they brought the
whole issue down to the popular level.
From the military point of view, however, the Crusades began with great
éclat. Antioch was captured from the Turks in 1098, Jerusalem in 1099: the
first Crusade was a brilliant, if bloody,' success. At both Antioch and
Jerusalem the Crusaders proceeded to set up Latin Patriarchs. At Jerusalem
this was reasonable, since the see was vacant at the time; and although in
the years that followed there existed a succession of Greek Patriarchs of
Jerusalem, living exiled in Cyprus, yet within Palestine itself the whole
population, Greek as well as Latin, at first accepted the Latin Patriarch as
their head. A Russian pilgrim at Jerusalem in 1106-7, Abbot Daniel of
Tchernigov, found Greeks and Latins worshipping together in harmony at the
Holy Places, though he noted with satisfaction that at the ceremony of the
Holy Fire the Greek lamps were lit miraculously while the Latin had to be
lit from the Greek. But at Antioch the Crusaders found a Greek Patriarch
actually in residence: shortly afterwards, it is true, he withdrew to
Constantinople, but the local Greek population was unwilling to recognize
the Latin Patriarch whom the Crusaders set up in his place. Thus from 11000
there existed in effect a local schism at Antioch. After I 187, when Saladin
captured Jerusalem, the situation in the Holy land deteriorated: two rivals,
resident within Palestine itself, now divided the Christian population
between them - a Latin Patriarch at Acre, a Greek at Jerusalem. These local
schisms at Antioch and Jerusalem were a sinister development. Rome was very
far away, and if Rome and Constantinople quarrelled, what practical
difference did it make to the average Christian in Syria or Palestine? But
when two rival bishops claimed the same throne and two hostile congregations
existed in the same city, the division became an immediate reality in which
simple believers were directly implicated. It was the Crusades that turned
the dispute into something that involved whole Christian congregations, and
not just church leaders; the Crusaders brought the schism down to the local
level.
But worse was to follow in 1204, with the taking of Constantinople during
the Fourth Crusade. The Crusaders were originally bound for Egypt, but were
persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed Emperor of
Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his
father to the throne. This western intervention in Byzantine politics did
not go happily, and eventually the Crusaders, disgusted by what they
regarded as Greek duplicity, lost patience and sacked the city. Eastern
Christendom has never forgotten those three appalling days of pillage. 'Even
the Saracens are merciful and kind,' protested Nicetas Choniates, 'compared
with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders.' In the
words of Sir Steven Runciman, 'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword;
and the sword was to sever Christendom. The long-standing doctrinal
disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national
hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western
aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian
east and Christian west were divided into two.
Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent
wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and
Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church. Yet
each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at
the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge
that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides
were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must
blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine
period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such
as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were
massacred by the Byzantine populace. (None the less there is no action on
the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.) And each
side, while claiming to be the one true Church, must admit that on the human
level it has been grievously impoverished by the separation. The Greek east
and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the
great schism has proved a great tragedy.
-Bishop Kallistos Ware from his book, The Orthodox Church
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
AGGreen
> > groups about the 11th century to form a new religon?
>
>
> ***Absolutely not. The Great Schism of 1054, which had been brewing and
> fermenting for centuries, was accomplished by the errant Roman
Patriarchate
> when it sent Cardinal Umberto to the Hagia Sophia in Constnatinople to
cast
> off the Eastern Patriarchates. From that moment on, the Roman
Patriarchate,
> which became known as the Roman Catholic church a few centuries later, has
> gone it alone. You should know, too, that none of the heresies of the
Roman
> Catholic Church are subscribed to in any way by the Holy Faith of Jesus
> Christ...Eastern Orthodoxy.
>
> Al
***To understand the Church that Christ founded, please read the history of
the Orthodox Church as posted on the web site of the Church of Serbia:
http://www.kosovo.com/history.html
Pastor Dave
<agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial
Oh and btw, I am not "Protestant". Nor am I Catholic.
Nor will you fool me, since I was born and raised a
Roman Catholic and spent years studying the faith.
I accept two labels and two labels only...
1) Christian.
2) Pastor.
Both were given to me by God, not man.
But hey, if you want to talk about "worldly", let's take
a look at part of the humble life of the Pope. How about
that 2005 Ferrari Enzo built for Pope John Paul II?
I didn't realize he was such a Ferrari fan. :) It auctioned
for $1,000,000 after his death. He kept it while alive.
Pastor Dave
<agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>The Holy Eucharist
>Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald
Do you really think that pasting this in is going to erase
what the Bible says?
Pastor Dave
<agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:s01bn11epkkngffjo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>>
>> No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
>> it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>> *THEY* are life.".
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
>
>***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of what
>Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
>embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ. When Christ God said This
>**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
>symbolic, make-believe body...etc. Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
>Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
>interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization of
>who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
You can try to label it whatever you want, but claiming that
I'm denying His words, when you are the one leaving His
explanation out, doesn't wash.
"It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits
nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit
and are life." - John 6:63
Note: The flesh profits NOTHING.
But you go ahead and keep claiming that the flesh gives
you life, which is what the Catholics claim (no eating His
flesh, no life) when He actually said...
1) The Spirit makes alive.
2) My words are spirit and life.
3) The flesh profits nothing.
You take His statement literally, when John is full of
metaphorical teaching by Christ and this is but one
example of it.
But hey, let's go the Catholic way.
Jesus also said, "I am the door". Can you please show me
where the door knob is located on Jesus, so I can take it
literally and enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Stephen M. Adams
>>itz...@hotmail.com
>
>>Re: Holy Communion?
>
>>Do you think that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the
>>Eucharist?
>
>Hello,
>
>The Bible says to ""Prove all things". 1 Th 5:21,
>
>"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>
>So just check them under a microscope.
Science can say NOTHING about matters of faith. Can you *prove* that
Jesus Christ returned in 1914?? Or whichever date your sect now claims...
I thought not.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Stephen M. Adams
>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
><agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>
>No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
>it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>*THEY* are life.".
Then explain the reaction of not only the crowds, but of the Apostles.
THEY took him literally, and he never corrected them...
Stephen M. Adams
>>
>Oh yes, and didn't the orthodox groups "break off from" the Roman
>groups about the 11th century to form a new religon?
You have it exactly backwards. Rome changed her dogma and left the true
faith. Orthodoxy continued with the same ancient beliefs she had before
the schism.
Pastor Dave
<ada...@no.spam> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
>><agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>>
>>No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
>>it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>>*THEY* are life.".
>
>Then explain the reaction of not only the crowds, but of the Apostles.
>THEY took him literally, and he never corrected them...
Are you really going to act this thick? V63 *IS* the
correction! I will deal with your claim later in this
message, but for now, I must note that you seem
to think that people taking His words literally and
walking away, means that He meant it literally. All
it shows, is that even when something is explained
to people, they can still be dense and reject a clear
teaching. You shouldn't need to ask the question
you did, since you are a shining example of that! (:
If He was being literal, then why did He say the following?
"It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits
nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit
and are life." - John 6:63
Note: You claim that literally eating His flesh gives life.
But what did Jesus say? "It is THE SPIRIT that give life.".
Note: The WORDS are Spirit and THEY are life.
Note: The FLESH profits NOTHING.
How can the flesh be the life, when He said it is the spirit
that is life?
How can the flesh give life, when He said that the flesh
profits nothing?
How can He be literal here, when John's Gospel shows
the metaphorical teachings of Christ?
I am the door. I am the light, etc..
Jesus also said, "NOT as your fathers ate the manna and
died". The physical act of eating does NOT save ones soul!
And when Jesus was having the Last Supper, did He offer
anyone His arm and say, "Start chowing down!" ???
But let's look at your claim more closely.
Since you claim that we are to literally eat Jesus, then it
only stands to reason that we are to literally drink the
rivers of living water that flow out of Him. And how will
you reconcile your belief with the following teaching
that Jesus gave to the Samaritan woman?
John 4:10-14
10) Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift
of God, and who it is that says to you, Give Me to drink,
you would have asked of Him, and He would have given
you living water.
11) The woman said to Him, Sir, you have no vessel, and
the well is deep. From where then do you have that living
water?
12) Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us
the well, and drank of it himself, and his children and his
cattle?
13) Jesus answered and said to her, Whoever drinks of
this water shall thirst again,
14) but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him
shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him
shall be in him a well of water springing up into
everlasting life.
Note that the Samaritan woman equated it with the physical
act of drinking, but that's not what it was about. But
according to your logic, he gave her some water to literally
and physically drink and she lived forever and never died.
So since I know that you don't claim that it was literal
water there, how do you reconcile that with your claim
that He was being literal in John 6, when He already
set the tone for the fact that when He spoke of eating
and drinking, He was being metaphorical?
Now you asked why they walked away in John 6, when
He spoke, if it wasn't literal. The better question which
I pose to you, is that if He was being literal, why didn't
those who stayed and continued to follow Him, tear
Him apart and eat Him? After all, they believed Him,
didn't they? :)
It is not I who has a question to answer, it is you.
And one more thing... Can you also show me people
who now have literal rivers of living water flowing out
their bellies? After all, if we're going to take the food
and drink thing literally, then that means that Jesus also
gave this power to others, since He said He would....
"He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of
his belly shall flow rivers of living water.'" - John 7:28
So where are they? I want to meet these people.
It seems that your belief does not hold Scriptural "water".
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
vo...@lycos.com
Nov 13, 2:36 am
(snip)
" ***Orthodoxy acknowledges the existence of other religious belief
systems claiming to be Christian. But Christ founded but ONE
Church...one way of thinking, one way of salvation. ONLY Holy Orthodoxy
has preserved untainted and unchanged that which Christ founded and the
Holy Apostles took and taught in many lands."
Al nice to see you back things are dull here without you...
The groups of early Christians did not hold to all of the beliefs and
practices of todays Orthodox. The system of goverance, some beliefs,
belief in the danger of receiving communion ill prepared, liturgy
evolved over time and most were moved forward when in order by the
state. Some practices have flip floped e.g. frequent communion and the
necessary preparation. However I agree that the earliest records, all
pre Constantine, indicate a belief in Christ becoming present in humans
in a special way during communion and not a memorial service for a
departed one (Christians believe He isn't dead).
My point to Pastor Dave that he did not respond to is
- Pastor Dave argues Christ is not present in bread and wine at
communion.
- He argues that Christ is present in words (both could should like
Shamanism :-) )
- Where then is Christ absent... how can Pastor Dave limit him, how
does he know where he is absent?
To follow Pastor Dave's method... Christ defined the location of heaven
by saying it is within you... therefore all references *by Christ* to
heaven are metaphorical...
The Orthodox belief (I was one for many years) is that Christ is
present in both communion, and words as well as in other ways that are
all a "mystery" to us and can't be defined or limited by our present
understanding...
AGGreen
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:40:13 -0500, "AGGreen"
> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>
> >***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial
>
> Oh and btw, I am not "Protestant". Nor am I Catholic.
> Nor will you fool me, since I was born and raised a
> Roman Catholic and spent years studying the faith.
***Well, spend some time studying the True Faith and stop using lame
arguments against the Roman Catholic Church as arguments against Holy
Orthodoxy. Geesh!
***If you are not Orthodox, nor Roman Catholic, you are one of the 30,000+
protestant cults, denominations, etc., that infect Christianity.
AGGreen
***You are only heretically substituting other passages of scripture, out of
context with the institution of the Eucharist, to deny what Christ actually
said. I am amused, however, that you do not deny what Christ God said when
he instituted the Sacrament of Holy Communion.
>
>
> You take His statement literally, when John is full of
> metaphorical teaching by Christ and this is but one
> example of it.
***As I pointed out to you, the Body of Christ, the Church, is the only true
interpreter of the meaning of Holy Scripture, not individuals like you and
me.
Al
AGGreen
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:44:50 -0500, "AGGreen"
> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>
> >The Holy Eucharist
> >Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald
>
> Do you really think that pasting this in is going to erase
> what the Bible says?
***Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist. Father Thomas just wrote about it.
Understand, too, that Holy Scripture is not the sole source of teaching in
the True Church...because the canon of the New Testament did not exist until
the fourth century.
Al
AGGreen
> On 12 Nov 2005 19:17:59 GMT, Stephen M. Adams
> <ada...@no.spam> spake thusly:
>
>
> >Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
> >><agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >>>***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
> >>
> >>No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
> >>it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
> >>*THEY* are life.".
> >
> >Then explain the reaction of not only the crowds, but of the Apostles.
> >THEY took him literally, and he never corrected them...
>
> Are you really going to act this thick? V63 *IS* the
> correction! I will deal with your claim later in this
> message, but for now, I must note that you seem
> to think that people taking His words literally and
> walking away, means that He meant it literally. All
> it shows, is that even when something is explained
> to people, they can still be dense and reject a clear
> teaching. You shouldn't need to ask the question
> you did, since you are a shining example of that! (:
***All you are doing, pastor, is offering opinions to suit your preconceived
thoughts against the Church Christ founded at Pentecost in Jerusalem. That's
what all of you protestants do...all 30,000+.
James
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:40:13 -0500, "AGGreen"
> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>
>>***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial
>
>
> Oh and btw, I am not "Protestant". Nor am I Catholic.
> Nor will you fool me, since I was born and raised a
> Roman Catholic and spent years studying the faith.
>
> I accept two labels and two labels only...
>
> 1) Christian.
> 2) Pastor.
>
> Both were given to me by God, not man.
>
> But hey, if you want to talk about "worldly", let's take
> a look at part of the humble life of the Pope. How about
> that 2005 Ferrari Enzo built for Pope John Paul II?
> I didn't realize he was such a Ferrari fan. :) It auctioned
> for $1,000,000 after his death. He kept it while alive.
>
>
a make-it-up-as-you-go-along twerp. PLONK! I don't need to waste my time
with internet twits. So-long.
James
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:44:50 -0500, "AGGreen"
> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>
>>The Holy Eucharist
>>Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald
>
>
> Do you really think that pasting this in is going to erase
> what the Bible says?
>
trying, you're no better than David Koresh.
James
You have no idea what you're going on about. As I mentioned in my other
post, I'm going to filter you into cyber non-existence. You're wasting
my time.
Alexander Arnakis
>***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of what
>Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
>embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ. When Christ God said This
>**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
>symbolic, make-believe body...etc. Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
>Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
>interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization of
>who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
>
And *you* call the Protestants narrow literalists... The Orthodox Holy
Tradition moves away from literalism to metaphoric interpretations
based on the Fathers. If *anything* is metaphoric and symbolic, it's
the eucharist. Christ didn't want to make us cannibals; He said "Do
this in *remembrance* of Me."
para...@technicianheaven.com
Your religion has to tell you that to keep you from leaving, of
course. We Christians have no such difficulty. I have participated
in weekly Bible studies in groups of 100 to 300 men, each with
Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and people from many
other backgrounds including Roman Catholic and Orthodox, studying the
Bible, discussing what we have been studying, singing, praying, and
worshipping God together in such formats as Mens' Bible Study
Fellowship, Precept Ministries, etc. There has been no "confliction"
between us as we studied what the _Bible_ _says_ _in_ the _text_.
It is only when certain groups go beyond scripture and make their own
stuff up as the Orthodox and Romans have done that they get into
trouble.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>
>news:fl4cn15murui5589v...@4ax.com...
>
>> >***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of
>what
>> >Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
>> >embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ.
>>
>> If you embraced Roman Catholicism you embraced heresy and manmade
>> religion, nothing more.
>
>***I did not. I am not Roman Catholic.
>
true, though to a lesser degree.
>>
>> You should not bother looking at "protestantism" or "catholicism," but
>> should look for Jesus in _Christianity_ and the Bible. You will find
>> the Real Jesus there, not anywhere else.
>
>
>***The Holy Orthodox Church (which has no affiliation or connection with
>Roman Catholicism) is the Body of Christ. Wghat the Church teaches is
>Christ's teaching because the Body of Christ is Christ. there is nothing in
>the teaching of the originalo church founded by Christ God at Pentecost
>which is contrary to anything written in Holy Scripture.
Are you going to claim that "The Holy Orthodox Church" has no ties
with Rome? That they didn't break from Rome in the 11th century?
That the "Patriarch" isn't trying to "work with" Rome to reunite the
two groups?
Last I heard, all of those things were true. If I am wrong, please
_cite_ where I am in error and I will check your citations.
>>
>> >When Christ God said This
>> >**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
>> >symbolic, make-believe body...etc.
>>
>> He also said "I _AM_" the way and truth and the light."
>> Does that mean He is a bunch of blacktop, a philosophical idea, and a
>> bunch of radiation?
>
>
>***You are mixing apples and oranges and coming up with a heretical new
>juice. "I AM" does not contradict Christ's statement that the Bread and Wine
>are His Body and Prescious Blood.
And your claims do not change that "being" His Body and Blood from
what the Bible shows them to be, His Body and Blood
_in_a_metaphorical_sense_. They do not become fingers, toes, skin,
flesh, and red, white corpusles mixed with serum. In other words, He
_is_ there, but not physically; He is there _spiritually_ just as He
is here at my desk spiritually as well.
>>
>> No, you are trying to make a metaphor into something it is not.
>
>
>***O, so Christ's words are metaphors to be interpreted only as you deem
>fit.
Your religion has to teach you that because it cannot claim to be the
"sole arbitor of what Jesus meant" if it does not.
No, it is clear _from_ _the_ _language_ _of_ _scripture_ that Jesus is
_not_ talking about body parts and corpusles. He is speaking in a
metaphore. The language demands it.
>Sorry, the Body of Christ, The Church, is Chriost's sole arbitor of
>what He meant by his sayings.
>The Church has ALWAYS interpreted Christ's
>words at the institution of the Eucharist to mean EXACTLY what He
>said...nothing more, nothing less.
>
At least since the 11th century when the orthodox broke off from Rome.
>>
>> >Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
>> >Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
>> >interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization
>of who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
You say we "bastardize" Christ's communion, then you are stupid enough
and hypocritical enough to say, "be at peace?"
>> >
>> I pity your thinking, Al. Christ's body, His church (which
>> encompasses ALL Christians,
>
>
>***No, it does not. There are more than 30,000 protestant denominations,
>cults, associations, organizations, etc. throughout the world. But, Christ
>founded but ONE Church, not 30,000.
We have (as I count them) 12 denominations of American money. Does
that make the $1.00 bill any less "American money" than a $100.00 bill
is "American money?"
And the 30,000 "denominations" is a made-up number, not an actual
_counted_ number, made up by people like your Orthodox religion.
There are no actual counts to take the number from, and there is no
_honest_ way to make such a count since "Baptist" includes hundreds of
individual congregations, some of which are associated with each other
and others of which are not. Unless you have a magic wand, all you or
anyone else can _honestly_do_ is guess. And the Romans and the
Orthodox have a great vested interest in "guessing high."
>
> not just one or two groups of them) has
>> known that the physical bodyparts are NOT there for all the 2,000
>> years or so that Christ's church has been around.
The Romans and Orthodox have not been around for 2,000 years or so
either. The Romans began about the end of the third century, and the
Orthodox about the 11th century.
>
>***Orthodoxy acknowledges the existence of other religious belief systems
>claiming to be Christian. But Christ founded but ONE Church...one way of
>thinking, one way of salvation.
Christians have _all_ been members of Christ's church from the
beginning through now, and forever in the future. Not a "religious
organization," but a church.
Jesus did _not_ found a "religious organization," but a gathering of
followers. We exist under _many_ organizational names, but we are
_all_ His followers, parts of His church.
>ONLY Holy Orthodoxy has preserved untainted
>and unchanged that which Christ founded and the Holy Apostles took and
>taught in many lands.
>
Sorry Al, but you are wrong. The so-called "orthodox church" is a
religious organization. It is _not_ like Jesus' original church.
The original did not have
Icons
Priests (Everyone who is a Christian is a member of the Royal
Priesthood according to the Bible)
Mariology
Or any of the ceremonial garbage that is in the Roman/Orthodox system.
You won't find _any_ of it in the Bible or in the first century
writings.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
I think I asked you in another part of this thread; if I am wrong,
offer me _citable_ evidence that I may check.
Just claiming I haven't a clue is worthless. It doesn't change a
thing.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
So besides the differences in your understanding of communion, what
other differences would you cite between what your "Orthodox" religion
holds as true and for instance, what a Presbyterian or Baptist
believes?
I know that you have a liturgical service, and that is not a problem
since the Bible never specifies how to worship except that we do so
"in spirit and in truth." I have been part of a Lutheran church
(Missouri Synod) 30 years ago so I am familiar with liturgies.
Although they were not practiced during the first century or three,
there is nothing inherently wrong with a liturgical-type service.
But other than that difference, what would you cite?
I'm curious. I admit I don't know anyone who is a member of the
Orthodox religion in my hometown.
parakaleo
James
Do WHAT, Alex? WHAT? The act of eating His Body and drinking His Blood
is what we do in remembrance of Him.
vo...@lycos.com
Nov 13, 10:15 am
"I know that you have a liturgical service, and that is not a problem
since the Bible never specifies how to worship except that we do so "in
spirit and in truth." I have been part of a Lutheran church (Missouri
not practiced during the first century or three, there is nothing
inherently wrong with a liturgical-type service."
Are you certain there were no liturgical services until 4th Cent AD?
AGGreen
<vo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131834641....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
***Sorry to read you left Christ and his Holy Body, the Church. Your words
ring true. As the Orthodox are wont to say, "We know where Christ is, but we
do not know where He is not."
Al
AGGreen
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:mp2dn159473r0cvf2...@4ax.com...
> "AGGreen" <agg...@nospam.net>, posted this little bit of stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian :
> >
> ><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
> >news:fl4cn15murui5589v...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> >***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of
> >what
> >> >Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
> >> >embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ.
> >>
> >> If you embraced Roman Catholicism you embraced heresy and manmade
> >> religion, nothing more.
> >
> >***I did not. I am not Roman Catholic.
> >
> If you are Eastern, Western, Russian, or other "orthodox" the same is
> true, though to a lesser degree.
***Oh, good grief NO.
> >>
> >> You should not bother looking at "protestantism" or "catholicism," but
> >> should look for Jesus in _Christianity_ and the Bible. You will find
> >> the Real Jesus there, not anywhere else.
> >
> >
> >***The Holy Orthodox Church (which has no affiliation or connection with
> >Roman Catholicism) is the Body of Christ. Wghat the Church teaches is
> >Christ's teaching because the Body of Christ is Christ. there is nothing
in
> >the teaching of the originalo church founded by Christ God at Pentecost
> >which is contrary to anything written in Holy Scripture.
>
> Are you going to claim that "The Holy Orthodox Church" has no ties
> with Rome? That they didn't break from Rome in the 11th century?
> That the "Patriarch" isn't trying to "work with" Rome to reunite the
> two groups?
***Some in Holy Orthodoxy seek to mend the fences with the RCC. I am not
necessarily one of them. However, today there are absolutely no theological,
dogmatic, liturgical, or sacramental ties with the RCC.
>
> Last I heard, all of those things were true. If I am wrong, please
> _cite_ where I am in error and I will check your citations.
***There is no need for citations. there are no ties as noted above with the
RCC.
> >>
> >> >When Christ God said This
> >> >**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
> >> >symbolic, make-believe body...etc.
> >>
> >> He also said "I _AM_" the way and truth and the light."
> >> Does that mean He is a bunch of blacktop, a philosophical idea, and a
> >> bunch of radiation?
> >
> >
> >***You are mixing apples and oranges and coming up with a heretical new
> >juice. "I AM" does not contradict Christ's statement that the Bread and
Wine
> >are His Body and Prescious Blood.
>
> And your claims do not change that "being" His Body and Blood from
> what the Bible shows them to be, His Body and Blood
> _in_a_metaphorical_sense_.
***I claim nothing. Christ, through His Holy Body, the Church, claims all.
And all that is necessary for an understanding of the True Faith were
settled in the seven Ecumenical Councils.
They do not become fingers, toes, skin,
> flesh, and red, white corpusles mixed with serum.
***No one has claimed this. The change of bread and wine into His Holy Body
and Prescious Blood is accomplished by the Holy Spirit who accomplishes all
during the Divine Liturgy. How this change takes place is a mystical
occurrence that mere man cannot comprehend let alone explain. That it
happens is accepted by faith, upheld by the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, the
physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is, as he taught, real.
In other words, He
> _is_ there, but not physically;
***Not so. Your belief is "late-breaking" and has no roots in the ancient
Church that Christ founded at Pentecost.
He is there _spiritually_ just as He
> is here at my desk spiritually as well.
> >>
> >> No, you are trying to make a metaphor into something it is not.
> >
> >
> >***O, so Christ's words are metaphors to be interpreted only as you deem
> >fit.
>
> Your religion has to teach you that because it cannot claim to be the
> "sole arbitor of what Jesus meant" if it does not.
***Holy Orthodoxy is not MY religion. It is the Church which He and He alone
(not man) created.
>
> No, it is clear _from_ _the_ _language_ _of_ _scripture_ that Jesus is
> _not_ talking about body parts and corpusles. He is speaking in a
> metaphore. The language demands it.
***Only in your mind to justify your rejection of what Christ instituted.
>
> >Sorry, the Body of Christ, The Church, is Chriost's sole arbitor of
> >what He meant by his sayings.
>
> >The Church has ALWAYS interpreted Christ's
> >words at the institution of the Eucharist to mean EXACTLY what He
> >said...nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> At least since the 11th century when the orthodox broke off from Rome.
***Obviously you have not read the two articles on the Great Schism I posted
in this thread. The Roman Patriarchate went its own way in 1054 A.D. when it
excommunicated the remaining Eastern Patriarchates (of the One Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church).
> >>
> >> >Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
> >> >Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said.
Your
> >> >interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the
bastardization
> >of who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
>
> You say we "bastardize" Christ's communion, then you are stupid enough
> and hypocritical enough to say, "be at peace?"
***Be at peace in your heresy.
> >> >
> >> I pity your thinking, Al. Christ's body, His church (which
> >> encompasses ALL Christians,
> >
> >
> >***No, it does not. There are more than 30,000 protestant denominations,
> >cults, associations, organizations, etc. throughout the world. But,
Christ
> >founded but ONE Church, not 30,000.
>
> We have (as I count them) 12 denominations of American money. Does
> that make the $1.00 bill any less "American money" than a $100.00 bill
> is "American money?"
>
> And the 30,000 "denominations" is a made-up number, not an actual
> _counted_ number, made up by people like your Orthodox religion.
***Actually, the 30,000 denominations of protestantism is a result of a
United Nations study a few years ago. the study noted that the proliferation
of new cults, sects, and denominations grows at 10-12 new ones every day.
Sad...truly sad.
> There are no actual counts to take the number from, and there is no
> _honest_ way to make such a count since "Baptist" includes hundreds of
> individual congregations, some of which are associated with each other
> and others of which are not. Unless you have a magic wand, all you or
> anyone else can _honestly_do_ is guess. And the Romans and the
> Orthodox have a great vested interest in "guessing high."
***Again, it was the U.N., not the Holy Church.
> >
> > not just one or two groups of them) has
> >> known that the physical bodyparts are NOT there for all the 2,000
> >> years or so that Christ's church has been around.
>
> The Romans and Orthodox have not been around for 2,000 years or so
> either. The Romans began about the end of the third century, and the
> Orthodox about the 11th century.
***The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has existed since Christ
founded her at Pentecost. While the term "Orthodox" gained wide use after
the Great Schism, the term Orthodox East (referring to those patriarchates
in the east...Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch) dates to
the early fifth century, the era when the seeds for the Great Schism were
being sown by Rome.
> >
> >***Orthodoxy acknowledges the existence of other religious belief systems
> >claiming to be Christian. But Christ founded but ONE Church...one way of
> >thinking, one way of salvation.
>
> Christians have _all_ been members of Christ's church from the
> beginning through now, and forever in the future. Not a "religious
> organization," but a church.
***There is only ONE church faithful to the teachings of Christ and the Holy
Apostles. It ain't Methodist, or Pentecostal, or Evangelical, or Lutheran,
or Roman Catholic. Take a guess which one is the only one so faithful.
>
> Jesus did _not_ found a "religious organization," but a gathering of
> followers.
***Christ God had followers, first disciples, then Apostles. But He DID
found the Church, at Pentecost, in Jerusalem, in 33 A.D.
We exist under _many_ organizational names, but we are
> _all_ His followers, parts of His church.
***Only one Church has the True Faith, the True Belief, the True
Understanding of Christ's dual nature. All others, including Rome, are
heretical deviations.
>
> >ONLY Holy Orthodoxy has preserved untainted
> >and unchanged that which Christ founded and the Holy Apostles took and
> >taught in many lands.
> >
> Sorry Al, but you are wrong. The so-called "orthodox church" is a
> religious organization. It is _not_ like Jesus' original church.
***Nice try. But it won't hold water.
>
> The original did not have
> Icons
***The first icon, of the Theotokos, was written by St. Luke the Apostle.
> Priests (Everyone who is a Christian is a member of the Royal
> Priesthood according to the Bible)
***Uh-oh. Mormonism!! :-(
> Mariology
***What is Mariology? It's a Roman Catholic term, I believe. Quite foreign
to the Orthodox.
>
> Or any of the ceremonial garbage that is in the Roman/Orthodox system.
***Obviously, you have no knowledge of the development of liturgical
practices from the first century. You should not make such statements unless
you have studied liturgics.
>
> You won't find _any_ of it in the Bible or in the first century
> writings.
***How much of the Holy Fathers of the Church have you read? How about the
complete works of St. John Chrysostom? St. Ambrose of Milan? St. Basil the
Great. St. Issac the Syrian? St. Clement of Alexandria?
Al
vo...@lycos.com
Snips and comments
"Are you going to claim that "The Holy Orthodox Church" has no ties
with Rome? That they didn't break from Rome in the 11th century? That
the "Patriarch" isn't trying to "work with" Rome to reunite the two
groups?"
Excellent observation... the EP calls RCC and Orthodox the two lungs...
however who broke from who you have to buy the premise of who is
original and had the authority...
"No, it is clear _from_ _the_ _language_ _of_ _scripture_ that Jesus
is _not_ talking about body parts and corpusles. He is speaking in a
metaphore. The language demands it. "
How do you know... it is assumption...
"We have (as I count them) 12 denominations of American money. Does
that make the $1.00 bill any less "American money" than a $100.00 bill
is "American money?" "
If you had a choice between a $1 and a $50 would you take the $1... :-)
While your analogy is weak the point is not to far off... many
Orthodox would agree with you otherwise they would not set on the WCC
and local NCC or focus mission statements on those that are not
"Christian"... however it is interesting that Protestants say this and
then go to rural Alaska or Russia and tell Orthodox Christians that
they are not really Christians only when they come to their group...
Protestants in Asia will ask are you Christian or Roman Catholic... so
much for we are all one in the spirit...
"And the 30,000 "denominations" is a made-up number, not an actual
_counted_ number, made up by people like your Orthodox religion. There
are no actual counts to take the number from, and there is no _honest_
way to make such a count since "Baptist" includes hundreds of
individual congregations, some of which are associated with each other
and others of which are not. Unless you have a magic wand, all you or
anyone else can _honestly_do_ is guess. And the Romans and the
Orthodox have a great vested interest in "guessing high." "
Denominations and congregations are not the same thing... Go to the WCC
or NCC and use their statistics... you can also do any number of web
searches and come up with numbers that range 20,000 +...
"The Romans and Orthodox have not been around for 2,000 years or so
either. The Romans began about the end of the third century, and the
Orthodox about the 11th century. "
Interesting do you have a factual citation on this...
"Christians have _all_ been members of Christ's church from the
beginning through now, and forever in the future. Not a "religious
organization," but a church. "
How do you define "Christian"?
"Jesus did _not_ found a "religious organization," but a gathering of
followers. We exist under _many_ organizational names, but we are
_all_ His followers, parts of His church. "
What body met in Jerusalem and made decisions (1st Century)?
"The original did not have Icons..."
When did this begin? Does your Church have images of any kind? How do
you feel if someone descrates a Bible?
"Priests (Everyone who is a Christian is a member of the Royal
Priesthood according to the Bible)"
Are you a pastor in your Church? If not why not? Are their rules, jobs
and a special moment of ordination that is held to be a pastor?
Remember their are rules in the NT even for deacons and they were set
apart with greater responsiblity...
"Mariology"
Certainly neither did the early RCC, Orthodox, Nestorian, Coptic or any
other ancient group... Today only the RCC holds to these views...
"Or any of the ceremonial garbage that is in the Roman/Orthodox
system. You won't find _any_ of it in the Bible or in the first century
writings."
Generally open minded Protestants and scholars would disagree with you.
Generally anyone that takes this view must discount any writings that
disagree with their view...
Does your Church have a format for services?
AGGreen
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:gh2dn1d6u6mmiu32t...@4ax.com...
>
> It is only when certain groups go beyond scripture and make their own
> stuff up as the Orthodox and Romans have done that they get into
> trouble.
***By stating this you clearly indicate that Christ, who is the Orthodox
Church, made stuff up. I feel your pain!
Al
AGGreen
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@address.none> wrote in message
news:2gucn1tvl72g63t4l...@4ax.com...
***I've heard my Baptist friend use this "remembrance" argument. However,
when we take Christ into our bodies through the Eucharist we cannot help but
remember Him, can we?
Al
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>Do WHAT, Alex? WHAT? The act of eating His Body and drinking His Blood
>is what we do in remembrance of Him.
The key word is "remembrance," not "partaking." Christ didn't say, "Do
this to somehow partake of My essence." Clearly, the "this is My body,
this is My blood" words weren't meant to be taken literally by those
present at the Last Supper, since Christ was there in the flesh. The
meaning was clearly "this bread *represents* My body, this wine
*represents* My blood." Not that the bread and wine actually *are* the
body and blood.
I take what the Church says about itself seriously. Therefore, since
the Church celebrates the Eucharist under the doctrine of the Real
Presence, I can't in good conscience participate since I don't think
it's right to eat Jesus' real (or even metaphorically real) flesh. A
simple memorial service would be different.
Anyway, I don't *want* to be part of Christ through communion. All of
us, Christ included, independently have a spark of the divine. The
difference between us and Christ is only a matter of degree.
Libertarius
The ancient Pagan ritual of THEOPHAGIA. -- L.
Milan
"AGGreen" <agg...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dl59f...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3tmdc0F...@individual.net...
> >
> > "Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
message
> > news:s01bn11epkkngffjo...@4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
> > > <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
> > >
> > >
> > > >***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
> > >
> >
> > principles.
> >
> > regards
> > Milan
>
> ***An uneducated action and a dumb response. You have not a clue. So,
since
> Christ God said that the bread and wine were His Body and Blood, did that
> indicate that Christ was canabilistic?
>
> Al
Firstly, it is "cannibalistic", not "canabilistic".
Secondly, if the host is body and blood this would suggest that eating it
would involve a cannibalistic action.
Thirdly, the line is attributed by the authors of the Gospels to some guy
called Jesus; not to "Christ God" whoever that may be.
regards
Milan
AGGreen
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4376A9B9.EF35CCC3@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
AGGreen
<vo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131846991.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Does your Church have a format for services?
***Of course. But it's not a format from which there is much deviation. The
Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is quite rigid. See:
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
AGGreen
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:4b4dn19r9861ecbfe...@4ax.com...
***And I've already posted two articles about the Great Schism in this
thread. Find them. Geesh!
AGGreen
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:2l4dn1t949kjrcbq8...@4ax.com...
***My background is Methodist and Episcopalian. I don't know what the
Presbyterians and Lutherans and Baptists do. And, since I left
protestantism, I have no interest in looking back.
>
> I know that you have a liturgical service, and that is not a problem
> since the Bible never specifies how to worship except that we do so
> "in spirit and in truth." I have been part of a Lutheran church
> (Missouri Synod) 30 years ago so I am familiar with liturgies.
> Although they were not practiced during the first century or three,
> there is nothing inherently wrong with a liturgical-type service.
>
> But other than that difference, what would you cite?
***What difference? You didn't mention a difference.
>
> I'm curious. I admit I don't know anyone who is a member of the
> Orthodox religion in my hometown.
***Orthodoxy isn't a religion...it is THEE Church. And, what town do you
live in. I could find an Orthodox Church nearby if you like. I have the
resources.
Al
AGGreen
<vo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1131845028.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
***The eucharist has always been the central service of The church since
Apostolic times. But the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that we know
today evolved over a period of five centuries. The Carpatho-Russian prayer
book that I use has historical references to the various parts of the
liturgy, and those references clearly indicate that the liturgy just didn't
instantly materialize.
Al
Read The Bible
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together,
every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath
a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.
Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man
speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at
the most by three, and that by course; and let one
interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him
keep silence in the church; and let him speak to
himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or
three, and let the other judge. If any thing be
revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first
hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one,
that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the
spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,
as in all churches of the saints.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it
is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the
law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women
to speak in the church. What? came the word of God
out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man
think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are
the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be
ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid
not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done
decently and in order.
AGGreen
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@address.none> wrote in message
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:18:02 -0800, James <ortho...@outwest.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Do WHAT, Alex? WHAT? The act of eating His Body and drinking His Blood
> >is what we do in remembrance of Him.
>
> The key word is "remembrance," not "partaking." Christ didn't say, "Do
> this to somehow partake of My essence."
***Stop the clown act, Alex. "Remembrance" is simply "the act or process of
remembering." Clearly we do this, remember Christ, when we take Him in
through the Eucharist. Geesh. Didn't you learn anything in Orthodoxy before
you became an apostate?
Clearly, the "this is My body,
> this is My blood" words weren't meant to be taken literally by those
> present at the Last Supper, since Christ was there in the flesh. The
> meaning was clearly "this bread *represents* My body, this wine
> *represents* My blood." Not that the bread and wine actually *are* the
> body and blood.
***You are adding words to Holy Scripture...a most dangerous practice.
Christ said what He said. Accept it and quit the baloney.
>
> I take what the Church says about itself seriously.
***What Church...the evangelical Epithcopalians?
Therefore, since
> the Church celebrates the Eucharist under the doctrine of the Real
> Presence, I can't in good conscience participate since I don't think
> it's right to eat Jesus' real (or even metaphorically real) flesh. A
> simple memorial service would be different.
***With your heretical thoughts, your vision of a New Age church, you could
not take Communion anyway.
>
> Anyway, I don't *want* to be part of Christ through communion. All of
> us, Christ included, independently have a spark of the divine. The
> difference between us and Christ is only a matter of degree.
***Heresy pure and simple. You should be plonked!
Stephen M. Adams
>On 12 Nov 2005 19:17:59 GMT, Stephen M. Adams ><ada...@no.spam> spake thusly:
>>Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
>>>it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>>>*THEY* are life.".
>>
>>THEY took him literally, and he never corrected them...
>
>Are you really going to act this thick? V63 *IS* the
>correction! I will deal with your claim later in this
>message, but for now, I must note that you seem
>to think that people taking His words literally and
>walking away, means that He meant it literally.
Go back and read the text. Look at what was said by and to St. Peter.
It is quite clear that Peter understood Christ literally, and Christ
challenged Peter in this way. In the end, Peter admitted that even
with this *hard teaching* he had no other place to go.
>All
>it shows, is that even when something is explained
>to people, they can still be dense and reject a clear
>teaching. You shouldn't need to ask the question
>you did, since you are a shining example of that! (:
Insults. Proof of a losing argument. Thank you. Your insults show
that you KNOW that you have lost, and now must try to insult me and
belittle me so you can claim victory.
>If He was being literal, then why did He say the following?
If he was NOT being literal, why did the people as how He could give
them His flesh to eat?? Why did John write that the *DISCIPLES said
that it was a *difficult statement for anyone to hear*?? And what
was Jesus response??? An even tougher teaching! That the Messiah
was going to be crucified (ie lifted up).
Then he says:
>"It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits
>nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit
>and are life." - John 6:63
This passage understood properly means - what I have *taught* you - in
other words, the 'words I just spoke' are spirit and life. The 'flesh'
in this verse is talking about religious acts - it is not a denial of
his clear statement:
"My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink"
He's saying quite literally that his flesh and blood are *real* food and
drink - not symbolic. Not metaphoric. Real. True.
>How can He be literal here, when John's Gospel shows
>the metaphorical teachings of Christ?
>
>I am the door. I am the light, etc..
Because he went out of His way to state that He was NOT being metaphorical
or symbolic:
"My flesh is *true* food and by blood is *true* drink"
>Jesus also said, "NOT as your fathers ate the manna and
>died". The physical act of eating does NOT save ones soul!
>
>And when Jesus was having the Last Supper, did He offer
>anyone His arm and say, "Start chowing down!" ???
>
>But let's look at your claim more closely.
He says, much to your chagrin:
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and
My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood
abides in Me, and I in him."
Deny it until your dying breath - but don't be surprised when you discover
that by refusing to obey Christ you find yourself NOT abinding in him, and
cast out. The risk is yours.
>Since you claim that we are to literally eat Jesus, then it
>only stands to reason that we are to literally drink the
>rivers of living water that flow out of Him. And how will
>you reconcile your belief with the following teaching
>that Jesus gave to the Samaritan woman?
>
>John 4:10-14
The entire context is different - not well He does NOT make the
same kind of statements - repeated several times in the 6th Chatper,
that He is REAL, TRUE water. Thus, you cannot compare the two. They
are of completely different character.
>It seems that your belief does not hold Scriptural "water".
I believe the Scriptures. You do not.
>Pastor Dave Raymond
>1st Century Church of Christ
Wrong. If you were of any such organization, you would be an Orthodox
Christian.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Pastor Dave
<aggreen@spam_me_not.net> spake thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:aidcn1t7cg8c5793t...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:40:13 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
>message
>> >news:s01bn11epkkngffjo...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> >> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>> >>
>> >> No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
>> >> it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>> >> *THEY* are life.".
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Pastor Dave Raymond
>> >
>> >
>> >***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of
>what
>> >Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
>> >embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ. When Christ God said This
>> >**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
>> >symbolic, make-believe body...etc. Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
>> >Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
>> >interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization
>of
>> >who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
>>
>> You can try to label it whatever you want, but claiming that
>> I'm denying His words, when you are the one leaving His
>> explanation out, doesn't wash.
>>
>> "It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits
>> nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit
>> and are life." - John 6:63
>>
>> Note: The flesh profits NOTHING.
>>
>> But you go ahead and keep claiming that the flesh gives
>> you life, which is what the Catholics claim (no eating His
>> flesh, no life) when He actually said...
>>
>> 1) The Spirit makes alive.
>>
>> 2) My words are spirit and life.
>>
>> 3) The flesh profits nothing.
>
>
>***You are only heretically substituting other passages of scripture, out of
>context with the institution of the Eucharist, to deny what Christ actually
>said. I am amused, however, that you do not deny what Christ God said when
>he instituted the Sacrament of Holy Communion.
No one is substituting anything and you have to be pretty
stupid to write a response like that. (:
It was part of the same chapter and part of the same subject
and was Jesus' explanation of what He just said.
But acknowledging that does not suit your heresy.
>> You take His statement literally, when John is full of
>> metaphorical teaching by Christ and this is but one
>> example of it.
>
>***As I pointed out to you, the Body of Christ, the Church, is the only true
>interpreter of the meaning of Holy Scripture, not individuals like you and
>me.
Let it be noted that you had no answer for the points I
made. This proves that you do not care about truth.
Truth be damned, as long as your cult lives on.
We both know you got the point. We both know you had no
response to it. We both know that you seek to pretend that
no point was made.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
He who despises the word will be destroyed.
- Proverbs (assorted)
Stephen M. Adams
Except that you are understanding 'remembrance' in a fully nominalist
way that is thoroughly modern. To the people that were being spoken
to 'remember' meant to 'put back together and manifest.' Symbols
actually manifest the reality behind them - they are not simply empty
indications of an idea.
To truly remember (think opposite of dismember) is to manifest the reality
of the event. Recall in John 6: My flesh is true food and my blood is
true drink; unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no
life in you."
Believe it or not, it doesn't change the reality. The Eucharist is truly
the body and blood of Christ. HOW that is accomplished is unkown, and
can only truly be appraised with spiritual sight (the 'nous') - not by
sight or taste...
Stephen M. Adams
He can't be. They existed FAR earlier than that. And in fact, there
were 'liturgies' in the Synagogues and the Temple during the time of
Christ. Liturgical worship is VERY Jewish.
Stephen M. Adams
>Your religion has to tell you that to keep you from leaving, of
>course. We Christians have no such difficulty. I have participated
>in weekly Bible studies in groups of 100 to 300 men, each with
>Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and people from many
>other backgrounds including Roman Catholic and Orthodox, studying the
>Bible, discussing what we have been studying, singing, praying, and
>worshipping God together in such formats as Mens' Bible Study
>Fellowship, Precept Ministries, etc. There has been no "confliction"
>between us as we studied what the _Bible_ _says_ _in_ the _text_.
>
>It is only when certain groups go beyond scripture and make their own
>stuff up as the Orthodox and Romans have done that they get into
>trouble.
And of course, this explains why there are 30,000 or so Protestant groups
all claiming to follow the Scriptures, and yet, not a SINGLE doctrine is
agreed upon by every one of those groups.
James
These Prots are about as looney as they come. I'm filtering this entire
thread. It's a waste of time and energy to read this heretical nonsense.
Stephen M. Adams
><vo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:1131846991.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Does your Church have a format for services?
>
>
>***Of course. But it's not a format from which there is much deviation. The
>Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is quite rigid.
That's OK. Most Protestant worship patterns are equally rigid. I do
remember that all heck broke loose at one church I used to attend when
they wanted to change the order of the service...you would have thought
the pastor had decided to worship Isis or something!
Pastor Dave
<aggreen@spam_me_not.net> spake thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:gmjcn11326mpov0v2...@4ax.com...
>> On 12 Nov 2005 19:17:59 GMT, Stephen M. Adams
>> <ada...@no.spam> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> >><agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>> >>
>> >>No son, He didn't. He used symbolism and when He explained
>> >>it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>> >>*THEY* are life.".
>> >
>> >Then explain the reaction of not only the crowds, but of the Apostles.
>> >THEY took him literally, and he never corrected them...
>>
>> Are you really going to act this thick? V63 *IS* the
>> correction! I will deal with your claim later in this
>> message, but for now, I must note that you seem
>> to think that people taking His words literally and
>> walking away, means that He meant it literally. All
>> it shows, is that even when something is explained
>> to people, they can still be dense and reject a clear
>> teaching. You shouldn't need to ask the question
>> you did, since you are a shining example of that! (:
>
>
>***All you are doing, pastor, is offering opinions to suit your preconceived
>thoughts against the Church Christ founded at Pentecost in Jerusalem.
>That's what all of you protestants do...all 30,000+.
What I am doing, is revealing you as the foolish boy that
you are. You snipped my rebuttal of your claim and then
proceeded to insult me. Stupid people aren't tolerated
for too long and your stupidity is overwhelming, as is your
hatred of anyone who can think for themselves.
It is documented here today, that you had no response
to the obvious Scriptural points I made.
It is documented here today, that you are apparently dumb
enough to think that if you snip my words when you respond,
that it means that some magical entity went around erasing
my response from every news server and from the minds of
all who read it already. <chuckle>
Here it is again for you, since you loved it so much. :)
If He was being literal, then why did He say the following?
"It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits
nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit
and are life." - John 6:63
Note: You claim that literally eating His flesh gives life.
But what did Jesus say? "It is THE SPIRIT that give life.".
Note: The WORDS are Spirit and THEY are life.
Note: The FLESH profits NOTHING.
How can the flesh be the life, when He said it is the spirit
that is life?
How can the flesh give life, when He said that the flesh
profits nothing?
How can He be literal here, when John's Gospel shows
the metaphorical teachings of Christ?
I am the door. I am the light, etc..
Jesus also said, "NOT as your fathers ate the manna and
died". The physical act of eating does NOT save ones soul!
And when Jesus was having the Last Supper, did He offer
anyone His arm and say, "Start chowing down!" ???
But let's look at your claim more closely.
Since you claim that we are to literally eat Jesus, then it
only stands to reason that we are to literally drink the
rivers of living water that flow out of Him. And how will
you reconcile your belief with the following teaching
that Jesus gave to the Samaritan woman?
John 4:10-14
10) Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift
of God, and who it is that says to you, Give Me to drink,
you would have asked of Him, and He would have given
you living water.
11) The woman said to Him, Sir, you have no vessel, and
the well is deep. From where then do you have that living
water?
12) Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us
the well, and drank of it himself, and his children and his
cattle?
13) Jesus answered and said to her, Whoever drinks of
this water shall thirst again,
14) but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him
shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him
shall be in him a well of water springing up into
everlasting life.
Note that the Samaritan woman equated it with the physical
act of drinking, but that's not what it was about. But
according to your logic, he gave her some water to literally
and physically drink and she lived forever and never died.
So since I know that you don't claim that it was literal
water there, how do you reconcile that with your claim
that He was being literal in John 6, when He already
set the tone for the fact that when He spoke of eating
and drinking, He was being metaphorical?
Now you asked why they walked away in John 6, when
He spoke, if it wasn't literal. The better question which
I pose to you, is that if He was being literal, why didn't
those who stayed and continued to follow Him, tear
Him apart and eat Him? After all, they believed Him,
didn't they? :)
It is not I who has a question to answer, it is you.
And one more thing... Can you also show me people
who now have literal rivers of living water flowing out
their bellies? After all, if we're going to take the food
and drink thing literally, then that means that Jesus also
gave this power to others, since He said He would....
"He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of
his belly shall flow rivers of living water.'" - John 7:28
So where are they? I want to meet these people.
It seems that your belief does not hold Scriptural "water".
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
Pastor Dave
<aggreen@spam_me_not.net> spake thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:n6ecn1ldvbm0kj4ad...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:44:50 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >The Holy Eucharist
>> >Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald
>>
>> Do you really think that pasting this in is going to erase
>> what the Bible says?
>
>
>***Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist.
Yea right. I just read Jesus saying that and He also said
to make sure the Pope agrees.
Pastor Dave
>My point to Pastor Dave that he did not respond to is
> - Pastor Dave argues Christ is not present in bread and wine at
>communion.
>- He argues that Christ is present in words (both could should like
>Shamanism :-) )
>- Where then is Christ absent... how can Pastor Dave limit him, how
>does he know where he is absent?
>
>To follow Pastor Dave's method... Christ defined the location of heaven
>by saying it is within you... therefore all references *by Christ* to
>heaven are metaphorical...
You claim is ridiculous and you seek to avoid admitting that
He was not being literal.
If He was being literal, then why did He say the following?
"It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits
nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit
and are life." - John 6:63
Note: You claim that literally eating His flesh gives life.
But what did Jesus say? "It is THE SPIRIT that give life.".
Note: The WORDS are Spirit and THEY are life.
Note: The FLESH profits NOTHING.
How can the flesh be the life, when He said it is the spirit
that is life?
How can the flesh give life, when He said that the flesh
profits nothing?
The fact is, you have Christ contradicting Himself. Which
is life? His literal flesh? Or his words? You have yet to
answer that, as does any Orthodox, or RCC person.
John 4:10-14
--
Pastor Dave
<aggreen@spam_me_not.net> spake thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:cqdcn112tj6tnr25v...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:40:13 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial
>>
>> Oh and btw, I am not "Protestant". Nor am I Catholic.
>> Nor will you fool me, since I was born and raised a
>> Roman Catholic and spent years studying the faith.
>
>
>***Well, spend some time studying the True Faith and stop using lame
>arguments against the Roman Catholic Church as arguments against Holy
>Orthodoxy. Geesh!
Try realizing that you are a heretic according to the RCC
and your claim is no more valid than theirs.
You live to promote a denomination. I live to promote
Christ. The difference is obvious, when you get upset when
someone makes a point that goes against what your cult
teaches you and you have no response, yet still call the
other person ignorant.
>***If you are not Orthodox, nor Roman Catholic, you are one of the 30,000+
>protestant cults, denominations, etc., that infect Christianity.
And now you seek to tell me what I am. I guess being God,
you would know huh?
Son, it is people like you who are the infection. You are
an oozing sore upon the church and you are no different
than the Muslims who kill those who are not Muslim, just
like the fools in the Crusades did. You worship a
denomination. I worship Christ and He never said, "Be
an Orthodox Catholic or die!".
Peace Crusader
Does the Bible say that we can cremate a corpse? Where in the Bible
does it say that we can do this? I know that it is "Dust to Dust" and
not "Dust to Ashes".
Your opinion please.
With love, your brother in Jesus,
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader
Motto: pro aris et focis
http://www.geocities.com/peacecrusader888/
Pastor Dave
<ada...@no.spam> spake thusly:
I can see in your message that you tried to pit Scripture
against Scripture. You did not however, deal with what
I said.
You claim that His flesh is life.
I said that His words and the Spirit are life.
V63 comes AFTER what you quote as proof.
V63 is the EXPLANATION of what you quote.
So now you are forced to make a choice. Which is life?
Chomping on Jesus? Or the Spirit and His words?
You have also not dealt with the following...
Since you claim that we are to literally eat Jesus, then it
only stands to reason that we are to literally drink the
rivers of living water that flow out of Him. And how will
you reconcile your belief with the following teaching
that Jesus gave to the Samaritan woman?
John 4:10-14
10) Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
vo...@lycos.com
Nov 13, 1:11 pm
"Try realizing that you are a heretic according to the RCC and your
claim is no more valid than theirs."
Not since Vatican II
"You live to promote a denomination. I live to promote Christ."
As do you... both of you are promoting your view and yours alone... Al
is honest about doing it...
"And now you seek to tell me what I am. I guess being God, you would
know huh? "
You are not among the 20-30k protestant groups?
vo...@lycos.com
Nov 13, 1:15 pm
"What I am doing, is revealing you as the foolish boy that you are.
You snipped my rebuttal of your claim and then
proceeded to insult me. Stupid people aren't tolerated for too long
and your stupidity is overwhelming, as is your
hatred of anyone who can think for themselves."
"It is documented here today, that you are apparently dumb enough to
think that if you snip my words when you respond,
that it means that some magical entity went around erasing my response
from every news server and from the minds of
all who read it already. <chuckle>"
"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for
one another" (John 13:35)
"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the
brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death" (1 John
3:14)
"by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and
keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His
commandments." (1 John 5:2)
"Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first
and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love
your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law
and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40)
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for
this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
"owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves
another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not
commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You
shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' and if there is
any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You
shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor;
therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10)
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" principle. He says,
"Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your
goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you
also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what
credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And
if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?
For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you
hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend
to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and
lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and
you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and
evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful."
(Luke 6:30-36)
vo...@lycos.com
Nov 13, 1:17 pm
>My point to Pastor Dave that he did not respond to is
> - Pastor Dave argues Christ is not present in bread and wine at
>communion.
>- He argues that Christ is present in words (both could
>Shamanism :-) )
>- Where then is Christ absent... how can Pastor Dave limit him, how
>does he know where he is absent?
>To follow Pastor Dave's method... Christ defined the location of heaven
>by saying it is within you... therefore all references *by Christ* to
>heaven are metaphorical...
"You claim is ridiculous and you seek to avoid admitting that He was
not being literal."
If He was being literal, then why did He say the following?
(snip)
He was literal when He said the kingdom of God is within you... it was
a metaphor... how do you know...
Note: You claim that literally eating His flesh gives life.
But what did Jesus say? "It is THE SPIRIT that give life.".
Note: The WORDS are Spirit and THEY are life.
You tend to lump people together here... I did not say that the words
of Christ were not... however that does not prevent other thngs from
being as well.... how can you limit God's presence...
"Note: The FLESH profits NOTHING.
How can the flesh be the life, when He said it is the spirit
that is life?"
How can the flesh give life, when He said that the flesh
profits nothing?
You stretching...
"The fact is, you have Christ contradicting Himself. Which is life?
His literal flesh? Or his words? You have yet to
answer that, as does any Orthodox, or RCC person."
I am neither Orthodox or RC... why is it one and not the other why is
it only one...
"But let's look at your claim more closely."
Not what I said... I know it is easier to argue when you can typecast
people but that doesn't work with me as I am not Orthodox or RC...
vo...@lycos.com
Nov 13, 12:55 pm
"That's OK. Most Protestant worship patterns are equally rigid. I do
remember that all heck broke loose at one church I used to attend when
they wanted to change the order of the service...you would have thought
the pastor had decided to worship Isis or something! "
and that was my point... the protestant groups that complain of
liturgical worship also define their services... Christians are often
pretty sad when they run around self promoting rather than being more
inclusive, learn from each other and even take care of the hungry the
poor the persecuted...
But the topic... if indeed as the Orthodox, Copts, Nesotorians, RC and
a number of other claim that God is fully present in the communion and
*if* one consumes without preparation, with "dirty hands" then terrible
things may occur... often cited is a passage from the NT... why have
not those clergy that are in the altar every Sunday and trying to
seduce children and young men and women struck down dead....
Stephen M. Adams
>>>Pastor Dave Raymond
>>>1st Century Church of Christ
>>
>>Wrong. If you were of any such organization, you would be an Orthodox
>>Christian.
>
>against Scripture. You did not however, deal with what
>I said.
On the contrary. I DID deal with it. But since you cannot deal with
my rebuttal, you refused to respond to it, and simply reposted your
claims.
Typical. First you call names, then you claim that I never answered
you, AND you fail to respond to accurate criticism of your points.
All strong indiciations that you hold an indefinsible position.
para...@technicianheaven.com
>
>>
>> It is only when certain groups go beyond scripture and make their own
>> stuff up as the Orthodox and Romans have done that they get into
>> trouble.
>
>
>Church, made stuff up. I feel your pain!
>
Christ's church (_ALL_ of us), is Christ's Body, it is true. The
Orthodox religion is a tiny part of it, and then only those in the
Orthodox religion who are actually Christians are part of it.
I have no pain. I am comfortable, in the arms of the Most Holy God.
I'm sorry for you though.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
At least that is what your apostate religion tells you to keep you in
line, to keep you from straying from it. It has a vested interest in
making you believe that.
Of course the number (30,000) comes straight from someone's
imagination since there is no honest way to know who is affilliated
directly with who, and nobody has actually done a count, which would
be impossible anyway.
And not a "SINGLE" doctrine agreed upon by every one of those groups?
LOL! First off, not all who call themselves a "Christian" group
really is a Christian group. The JW's, Mormons, Moonies, Catholics
etc call themselves "Christian," yet practice belief systems partially
or completely foreign to what the Bible tells us that the Apostles
taught in the first century.
Secondly, I have been involved with such groups as Precept Ministries,
Men's Bible Study Fellowship, etc. in which we have had groups of
150-400 or so men meeting each week, with Presbyterians, Lutherans,
Episcopalians, Baptists, Evangelical Frees, Pentecostals, and yes,
even catholics, all studying scripture together, all coming to common
conclusions, all praying together, singing together, worshipping
together, and praising God together.
Your religion must falsely claim that all of us "non-catholics" are
somehow attacking each other, but in reality that is not so. We
attack the false doctrines of fringe groups such as yourself who have
"redefined" what Jesus began as His church and what the Apostles
taught as doctrine in the first century, but it is the false doctrines
we attack, and between non-catholics it is only the fringe groups who
differ on the essentials.
Your religion lies to you to keep you from questioning _their_
interpretation of Biblical things. One of those lies is that we
Christians are somehow attacking each other.
Other than in these newsgroups (that seems to be the function of the
newsgroups, doesn't it?), such "attacks" are nearly non-existant.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>>news:s01bn11epkkngffjo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:53:06 -0500, "AGGreen"
>> <agg...@nospam.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >***Of course Christ is present in the Eucharist. He said so!
>>
>> it to His disciples, He said, "My *WORDS* are Spirit and
>> *THEY* are life.".
>>
>>
>> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
>
>***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of what
>Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
>embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ. When Christ God said This
>**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
>symbolic, make-believe body...etc. Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
>Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said. Your
>interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the bastardization of
>who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
>
>
btw Al, I am not a pastor
parakaleo
James
No, but you are evidentally a heretic.
Libertarius
Peace Crusader wrote:
> My Dear Fellowmen,
>
> Does the Bible say that we can cremate a corpse? Where in the Bible
> does it say that we can do this? I know that it is "Dust to Dust" and
> not "Dust to Ashes".
>
> Your opinion please.
===>Is that a commandment or just a description
of what happens?
Note that it does not say your soul goes t o heaven, either. -- L.
one_called
>> My Dear Fellowmen,
>>
>> Does the Bible say that we can cremate a corpse? Where in the Bible
>> does it say that we can do this? I know that it is "Dust to Dust" and
>> not "Dust to Ashes".
>>
>> Your opinion please.
Why would it matter? The body we are in is not the body we will be in. God
is able to raise someone with a body that is suitable. Dust is just
that...dust. The word used is shown below....all the same thing.(From
Strongs)
?a?pha?r
aw-fawr'
From H6080; dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay, earth, mud: - ashes,
dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish.
Pastor Dave
<acfer...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>My Dear Fellowmen,
>
>Does the Bible say that we can cremate a corpse? Where in the Bible
>does it say that we can do this? I know that it is "Dust to Dust" and
>not "Dust to Ashes".
>
>Your opinion please.
Corpses turn to ash anyway, so what's the difference?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
Pastor Dave
>79. Pastor Dave
> Nov 13, 1:11 pm
>"Try realizing that you are a heretic according to the RCC and your
>claim is no more valid than theirs."
>
>Not since Vatican II
Oh well, that fixes it all. :)
>"You live to promote a denomination. I live to promote Christ."
>
>As do you... both of you are promoting your view and yours alone... Al
>is honest about doing it...
Since I do not belong to a denomination, that is an
incorrect assessment.
>"And now you seek to tell me what I am. I guess being God, you would
>know huh? "
>
>You are not among the 20-30k protestant groups?
No, I am not. I am not Catholic, nor Protestant and neither
is found in the Bible. I am Christian, period. If it makes
you feel better to group people then go for it. But I don't
belong to any group and what I preach is quote radical
today, but is ancient and goes against the grain of just
about every denomination out there.
Pastor Dave
Apparently you are having problems with a quoting function.
What do you use?
Also, you assume he is my brother in Christ. I have not
made that assumption.
You have singled me out, yet I responded to insults. That
shows a bias and a lack of the love that you quote.
Pastor Dave
<ada...@no.spam> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
>>>>Pastor Dave Raymond
>>>>1st Century Church of Christ
>>>
>>>Wrong. If you were of any such organization, you would be an Orthodox
>>>Christian.
>>
>>I can see in your message that you tried to pit Scripture
>>against Scripture. You did not however, deal with what
>>I said.
>
>On the contrary. I DID deal with it. But since you cannot deal with
>my rebuttal, you refused to respond to it, and simply reposted your
>claims.
A rebuttal does not consist of snipping it and then claiming
to have dealt with it. That makes your comment in both
messages, a lie.
>Typical. First you call names, then you claim that I never answered
>you, AND you fail to respond to accurate criticism of your points.
>All strong indiciations that you hold an indefinsible position.
So you claim. I didn't snip text and then claim to have
dealt with it. You did.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
Pastor Dave
This is what you call a rebuttal? Let it be noted that all
three people responding, have failed to deal with the points
I made. Two of you also snipped the text and then claimed
to have dealt with it. If this is the best you have to
offer in defense of this cannibalism, then you are sad
indeed.
para...@technicianheaven.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>
>news:mp2dn159473r0cvf2...@4ax.com...
>> "AGGreen" <agg...@nospam.net>, posted this little bit of stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian :
>> >
>> >news:fl4cn15murui5589v...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> >***Sorry, Pastor, but your statement is a typical protestant denial of
>> >what
>> >> >Christ said. It is one of the reasons why I rejected protestantism and
>> >> >embraced the True Faith...the Body of Christ.
>> >>
>> >> religion, nothing more.
>> >
>> >***I did not. I am not Roman Catholic.
>> >
>> If you are Eastern, Western, Russian, or other "orthodox" the same is
>> true, though to a lesser degree.
>
>***Oh, good grief NO.
NO? No _what?_ No you are not Orthodox? Or no, you don't think what
I said is true?
>> >>
>> >> You should not bother looking at "protestantism" or "catholicism," but
>> >> should look for Jesus in _Christianity_ and the Bible. You will find
>> >> the Real Jesus there, not anywhere else.
>> >
>> >
>> >***The Holy Orthodox Church (which has no affiliation or connection with
>> >Roman Catholicism) is the Body of Christ. Wghat the Church teaches is
>> >Christ's teaching because the Body of Christ is Christ. there is nothing
>in
>> >the teaching of the originalo church founded by Christ God at Pentecost
>> >which is contrary to anything written in Holy Scripture.
>>
>> Are you going to claim that "The Holy Orthodox Church" has no ties
>> with Rome? That they didn't break from Rome in the 11th century?
>> That the "Patriarch" isn't trying to "work with" Rome to reunite the
>> two groups?
>
>***Some in Holy Orthodoxy seek to mend the fences with the RCC. I am not
>necessarily one of them. However, today there are absolutely no theological,
>dogmatic, liturgical, or sacramental ties with the RCC.
>
So you broke off and are on your own.
BREAK, BREAK, BREAK. . .
Hey just a moment. . .
Didn't I read in one of your posts that you were not orthodox at all,
but are a JW?
Now I _AM_ confused.
What religon are you, Al?
>>
>> Last I heard, all of those things were true. If I am wrong, please
>> _cite_ where I am in error and I will check your citations.
>
>***There is no need for citations. there are no ties as noted above with the
>RCC.
I'm not asking about _current_ ties, but about what I think the
orthodox refer to as the "scism." Are you going to claim that no such
"scism" took place, and that Orthodoxy didn't come into existance
until the 11th century when your group and Rome went your separate
ways?
And if the so-called "scism" _did_ take place, then why should we
believe that the Orthodox group is the "right" group in the eyes of
God, and not "just another denomination?"
>> >>
>> >> >When Christ God said This
>> >> >**IS** my Body and This **IS** my Blood" He didn't mean "this is my
>> >> >symbolic, make-believe body...etc.
>> >>
>> >> He also said "I _AM_" the way and truth and the light."
>> >> Does that mean He is a bunch of blacktop, a philosophical idea, and a
>> >> bunch of radiation?
>> >
>> >
>> >***You are mixing apples and oranges and coming up with a heretical new
>> >juice. "I AM" does not contradict Christ's statement that the Bread and
>Wine
>> >are His Body and Prescious Blood.
>>
>> And your claims do not change that "being" His Body and Blood from
>> what the Bible shows them to be, His Body and Blood
>> _in_a_metaphorical_sense_.
>
>
>***I claim nothing. Christ, through His Holy Body, the Church, claims all.
Well at least some who _claim_ to be His church do. They claim a lot
of things that are not true.
>And all that is necessary for an understanding of the True Faith were
>settled in the seven Ecumenical Councils.
According to who? The councils?
That is a little bit like seven groups of Democrats holding
"councils," then declaring that everything necessary for the
Democratic party was settled there. LOL!
>
> They do not become fingers, toes, skin,
>> flesh, and red, white corpusles mixed with serum.
>
>
>***No one has claimed this. The change of bread and wine into His Holy Body
>and Prescious Blood is accomplished by the Holy Spirit who accomplishes all
>during the Divine Liturgy. How this change takes place is a mystical
>occurrence that mere man cannot comprehend let alone explain. That it
>happens is accepted by faith, upheld by the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, the
>physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is, as he taught, real.
So are you, like the Baptists saying that He "really is there," but it
is a "spiritual thereness?" That is essentially what most Christians
believe in one form or another. We call the elements symbols, but we
know Jesus is really present.
Of course Jesus (through His Holy Spirit) is really present here at my
desk with me, and everywhere else in the world too. . .
>
> In other words, He
>> _is_ there, but not physically;
>
>
>***Not so. Your belief is "late-breaking" and has no roots in the ancient
>Church that Christ founded at Pentecost.
Show me where it is "late-breaking." Scripture says that while Jesus
_sat_ _there_ _intact_, He served the first communion of bread and
wine. He never said "This is no longer bread or wine, it has changed
into something else."
Jesus used many metaphors and similies in His ministry. He used them
in His description of communion.
>
>He is there _spiritually_ just as He
>> is here at my desk spiritually as well.
>> >>
>> >> No, you are trying to make a metaphor into something it is not.
>> >
>> >
>> >***O, so Christ's words are metaphors to be interpreted only as you deem
>> >fit.
>>
>> Your religion has to teach you that because it cannot claim to be the
>> "sole arbitor of what Jesus meant" if it does not.
>
>
>***Holy Orthodoxy is not MY religion. It is the Church which He and He alone
>(not man) created.
So it and you claim. Please do not expect me to believe that your
religion is Christ's church. I do not. Until you can actually
_demonstrate_ it is, it is ludicrous for you to expect me to believe
you.
You claim that your religion (the one you subscribe to, the one you
believe, I think) is this, that, and another thing, then you complain
when I speak of "your religion."
Your religion is different from my belief system, thus my referring to
it as "your religion," distinguishing it from what I believe is a
proper thing to do.
>>
>> No, it is clear _from_ _the_ _language_ _of_ _scripture_ that Jesus is
>> _not_ talking about body parts and corpusles. He is speaking in a
>> metaphore. The language demands it.
>
>***Only in your mind to justify your rejection of what Christ instituted.
>
You may claim that if you wish to deceive yourself. I don't need to
"justify" any rejection of anything since I have no reason to believe
other than what I believe and am not "rejecting" anything. The
language is clearly metaphorical, is accepted and beleived as
metaphorical by most of Christianity, and your Orthodox and Roman
groups, along with Anglicans and to some degree some of the Lutherans
(although their definitions will differ from yours somewhat) seem to
be the objectors.
>>
>> >Sorry, the Body of Christ, The Church, is Chriost's sole arbitor of
>> >what He meant by his sayings.
>>
>> >The Church has ALWAYS interpreted Christ's
>> >words at the institution of the Eucharist to mean EXACTLY what He
>> >said...nothing more, nothing less.
>> >
>> At least since the 11th century when the orthodox broke off from Rome.
>
>
>***Obviously you have not read the two articles on the Great Schism I posted
>in this thread. The Roman Patriarchate went its own way in 1054 A.D. when it
>excommunicated the remaining Eastern Patriarchates (of the One Holy Catholic
>and Apostolic Church).
The Roman patriarchate claims _your_ religon went its own way. Why
should I believe your group is the "right" group, if such a "right"
group exists? I didn't see the two articles, and if I had I probably
would not have read them if they were lengthy. I would rather
discourse with you than with articles that cannot answer questions
when they make faulty claims.
I did however go to kosovo.com/history.html. I didn't find much new
there, but I have only scanned it a few times. Because I am
interested in what claims the Orthodox church makes, I will likely go
back and look some more.
>> >>
>> >> >Christ's Holy Body, the Holy Orthodox
>> >> >Church, has always believed Christ meant, literally, what He said.
>Your
>> >> >interpretation is a late-breaking non-development in the
>bastardization
>> >of who and what Christ God is. However, be at peace.
>>
>> You say we "bastardize" Christ's communion, then you are stupid enough
>> and hypocritical enough to say, "be at peace?"
>
>***Be at peace in your heresy.
And you be at peace with your dog dung.
Hmm. Neither thing makes much sense, now does it?
But I am at peace. I have the peace of God, peace that passes all
understanding. I have all of the fruit of the Spirit as the
predominant part of my life.
Contradicts your heresy theory, doesn't it?
>> >> >
>> >> I pity your thinking, Al. Christ's body, His church (which
>> >> encompasses ALL Christians,
>> >
>> >
>> >***No, it does not. There are more than 30,000 protestant denominations,
>> >cults, associations, organizations, etc. throughout the world. But,
>Christ
>> >founded but ONE Church, not 30,000.
>>
>> We have (as I count them) 12 denominations of American money. Does
>> that make the $1.00 bill any less "American money" than a $100.00 bill
>> is "American money?"
>>
>> And the 30,000 "denominations" is a made-up number, not an actual
>> _counted_ number, made up by people like your Orthodox religion.
>
>
>***Actually, the 30,000 denominations of protestantism is a result of a
>United Nations study a few years ago. the study noted that the proliferation
>of new cults, sects, and denominations grows at 10-12 new ones every day.
>Sad...truly sad.
I have taken courses in statistical analysis, gathering statistics,
and methodologies. My statement stands solid. No legitimate
statistition would _ever_ claim there were any specific number of
anything that could not be adequately defined and separated into
groups.
What constitutes Anglican? Church of England? Episcopal? Any of a
hundred other kinds of affiliates? And which are part of that
"denomination," and which are separate denominations unto themselves?
Do you see the problem?
Are the Eastern Orthodox, Western Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.
separate denominations, or are they part of the same? Are the Roman
Catholics and Orthodox separate denominations, or are they separate
parts of the same?
You can very greatly change the outcome of the "survey" by merely
defining, and redefining your groups, thus no such "count" can be
considered mathematically valid.
>
>> There are no actual counts to take the number from, and there is no
>> _honest_ way to make such a count since "Baptist" includes hundreds of
>> individual congregations, some of which are associated with each other
>> and others of which are not. Unless you have a magic wand, all you or
>> anyone else can _honestly_do_ is guess. And the Romans and the
>> Orthodox have a great vested interest in "guessing high."
>
>***Again, it was the U.N., not the Holy Church.
>
The UN makes lots of claims that are not accurate.
The UN thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The UN claims that the world is getting warmer, based upon a very
limited amount of data.
The UN can be just as wrong as the Democrats can be. Or the gays can
be. They are all human beings, and all humans have a tendency towards
error.
>> >
>> > not just one or two groups of them) has
>> >> known that the physical bodyparts are NOT there for all the 2,000
>> >> years or so that Christ's church has been around.
>>
>> The Romans and Orthodox have not been around for 2,000 years or so
>> either. The Romans began about the end of the third century, and the
>> Orthodox about the 11th century.
>
>
>***The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has existed since Christ
>founded her at Pentecost. While the term "Orthodox" gained wide use after
>the Great Schism, the term Orthodox East (referring to those patriarchates
>in the east...Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch) dates to
>the early fifth century, the era when the seeds for the Great Schism were
>being sown by Rome.
>
Many "variations" of Christian groups came into being in the centuries
_after_ Jesus established His church. There were former Jews who
brought the baggage of the Jewish way with them. There were the
hellenists who brought their own baggage with them. There were Greeks
who brought their baggage with them too. And each individual
congregation was influenced by the baggage that was brought.
But Jesus never established a "religious/political organization." He
founded a "church," an "ekklesia" which in the Greek refers to _any_
group who meet together in His Name, by definition.
Jesus never said there would be one "patriarch" over all of His
earthly church; He made ALL Christians into one Royal Priesthood.
1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are
disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were
appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood , a holy nation,
His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who
called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were
not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy
but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV
This is addressed "to you who believe." Not to "we Apostles only,"
but to _all_ believers.
Rome tried to claim "headship" over Christ's church by virtue of
Constantine and his political capital. Your patriarch tries to claim
"headship" by virtue of your claimed "lineage." But Jesus never
established any such "headship" by any one person.
Instead, He gave us _scripture_ and the guidance of His Holy Spirit to
guide His body (_all_ of us) until we arrive in heaven.
>> >
>> >***Orthodoxy acknowledges the existence of other religious belief systems
>> >claiming to be Christian. But Christ founded but ONE Church...one way of
>> >thinking, one way of salvation.
>>
>> Christians have _all_ been members of Christ's church from the
>> beginning through now, and forever in the future. Not a "religious
>> organization," but a church.
>
>***There is only ONE church faithful to the teachings of Christ and the Holy
>Apostles. It ain't Methodist, or Pentecostal, or Evangelical, or Lutheran,
>or Roman Catholic. Take a guess which one is the only one so faithful.
>
You are talking about "church" in the perspective of "religious
organization." Jesus didn't establish a religious organization, a
political party, or a financial oligarhy. He established a
"congregation." That is the definition of the word.
>>
>> Jesus did _not_ found a "religious organization," but a gathering of
>> followers.
>
>***Christ God had followers, first disciples, then Apostles. But He DID
>found the Church, at Pentecost, in Jerusalem, in 33 A.D.
>
> We exist under _many_ organizational names, but we are
>> _all_ His followers, parts of His church.
>
>***Only one Church has the True Faith, the True Belief, the True
>Understanding of Christ's dual nature. All others, including Rome, are
>heretical deviations.
>
According to your religion, which has a vested interest in claiming
that. The mormons claim that their Joseph Smith "restored" what they
claim was lost, and they claim to have that true belief, true
understanding that you claim. So do other cults.
So does Rome. Why should we believe _yours_ is "right" and everyone
else is wrong?
>>
>> >ONLY Holy Orthodoxy has preserved untainted
>> >and unchanged that which Christ founded and the Holy Apostles took and
>> >taught in many lands.
>> >
>> Sorry Al, but you are wrong. The so-called "orthodox church" is a
>> religious organization. It is _not_ like Jesus' original church.
>
>***Nice try. But it won't hold water.
>
_Show_us_ one icon in the first century church. Show us one vestment.
show us one patriarch, head over all the earth.
Show us in SCRIPTURE or first century writings, not in modern-day
"hype" by your religion.
I don't think you can.
>>
>> The original did not have
>> Icons
>
>
>***The first icon, of the Theotokos, was written by St. Luke the Apostle.
>
>
>> Priests (Everyone who is a Christian is a member of the Royal
>> Priesthood according to the Bible)
>
>
>***Uh-oh. Mormonism!! :-(
No, the Bible. You have heard of that book haven't you?
1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are
disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were
appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood , a holy nation,
His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who
called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were
not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy
but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV
>
>> Mariology
>
>
>***What is Mariology? It's a Roman Catholic term, I believe. Quite foreign
>to the Orthodox.
>
Mariology. . .the study of Mary. Icons or statues of her, praying to
her to intercede for you, etc.
Do you not do that?
>>
>> Or any of the ceremonial garbage that is in the Roman/Orthodox system.
>
>
>***Obviously, you have no knowledge of the development of liturgical
>practices from the first century. You should not make such statements unless
>you have studied liturgics.
>
So give me first century _citations_ to help "educate" me.
Otherwise admit, these things were not there.
>> You won't find _any_ of it in the Bible or in the first century
>> writings.
>
>
>***How much of the Holy Fathers of the Church have you read? How about the
>complete works of St. John Chrysostom? St. Ambrose of Milan? St. Basil the
>Great. St. Issac the Syrian? St. Clement of Alexandria?
>
I am a fan of the writers of the first two centuries. Later centuries
don't interest me since they reflect a lot of "new stuff" added as the
centuries go by. I have a pretty good collection of the writings in
my library.
parakaleo
out...@citynet.net
what
outcome they want. In the john account we can get a measure of the real
presence and what Christ was saying independent of the speculation of
some
1500 years later. When he declared that his body and blood were to be
consumed some of His followers left because they could not accept His
teaching. A symbolic meaning would not cause such a response. The
protestant teaching is all over the place on this question, only the
radical left in the reformation movements taught this notion of
symbolic.
It is a notion of only 500 years history invented by men of the time to
serve religious/political ends.
Pastor Dave
thusly:
>Protestants like to pick and choose
Once again, you people show your lack of ability to be
honest. I am not Protestant, not any other denomination.
The fact is, you also ignored the points I made and all you
did, was to appeal to an authority in your cult, as if I
should recognize it. All I recognize is the authority of
God and His written word to mankind.
If He was being literal, then why did He say the following?
"It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits
nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit
and are life." - John 6:63
Note: You claim that literally eating His flesh gives life.
But what did Jesus say? "It is THE SPIRIT that give life.".
Note: The WORDS are Spirit and THEY are life.
Note: The FLESH profits NOTHING.
How can the flesh be the life, when He said it is the spirit
that is life?
How can the flesh give life, when He said that the flesh
profits nothing?
The fact is, you have Christ contradicting Himself. Which
is life? His literal flesh? Or his words? You have yet to
answer that, as does any Orthodox, or RCC person.
How can He be literal here, when John's Gospel shows
the metaphorical teachings of Christ?
I am the door. I am the light, etc..
Jesus also said, "NOT as your fathers ate the manna and
died". The physical act of eating does NOT save ones soul!
And when Jesus was having the Last Supper, did He offer
anyone His arm and say, "Start chowing down!" ???
But let's look at your claim more closely.
Since you claim that we are to literally eat Jesus, then it
John 4:10-14
It seems that your belief does not hold Scriptural "water".