Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Jellies, Aug 22, 2021.

  1. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The “doctrine” I was referring to in that context was the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice.

    Regarding the Bible, I don’t consider what I said to be a matter of belief. It is mere history, that anyone can verify for themselves. The Church did exist for decades before a single book of the NT was written, and existed for several centuries before there were any authoritative declarations regarding the limits of the canon. It was early Church councils that decided what the canon is. The NT didn’t just fall directly from heaven. And until that time, the local Churches relied on whatever books of the NT they had in their possession, along with the authority of their bishop, early local creeds, and the traditional liturgy. To oppose 4th century statements about the Eucharist to the same Scriptures that were also canonized by the same generation of Fathers in the 4th century would have been incomprehensible in that era. That is the only substantive point I was making. What got canonized wasn’t just those particular books, but those books as they were interpreted and understood by the Church which canonized them.
     
  2. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    232
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well Cyril of Jerusalem isn’t the whole church. He and 3 others are the only ones that mention propitiation. Just because its one of the theories am early church Father has doesn’t mean it’s what the whole church believed….Interestingly Cyril said this too :
    “21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

    22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.”
    Why is he telling people to rub Jesus on their face?O_o
    I think the only explanation here is he doesn’t believe in the Roman doctrine of the bread and wine being annihilated and therefore the Eucharist is literally God. The EO believe pretty much the same thing, in a physical presence, and the bread turns into Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity. This is a later development. The early church believed the body was the flesh of Christ and the blood was the blood. Cyril even says they are the anti types of the body and blood of Christ. And anti type is the Greek word the writer to the Hebrews uses:
    “For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy( ἀντίτυπα (antitypa))of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.”
    This word means :corresponding, i.e. A representative, counterpart.
    Many of the church fathers used this same word to talk about the Eucharist. So if this is a representative, a copy of the true body of Christ which is in heaven, then it must follow he doesn’t believe it’s physically the literal jesus that sits in the heavens, body, blood, soul, and divinity. He says whatever the Holy Ghost touches it sanctifies when referring to the Eucharistic change. this is in line with ireneaus (however you write his name lol) who said the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost has two realities, earthly and heavenly (aka bread (outward sign) and the body of Christ (inward grace)). Cyril even tells people to rub jesus on their face! In how many Roman or eastern churches would that ever be appropriate?:hmm:
    Cyril also tells people not to abstain from the Eucharist because they’ve sinned. Most church fathers say the opposite. I think you can see the rather out of the norm views he had compared to others. So if the Eucharist isn’t the literal Jesus that sits in the heavens offered to God, then it cannot follow he has the same view about the Eucharist that the Romans and EO do. They think their priests are worthy of offering the literal Christ Sunday after Sunday, while Cyril offers the anitype, the earthly copy or representation of the greater and true heavenly Christ. He also doesn’t believe he’s offering the divinity of Jesus and his soul to God. So clearly his view of propitiation isn’t the same. What is it then? I’m not sure. But if he believes it to be the representation of setting forth the sacrifice of Christ to God (a memorial) and he explains there is benefit to offering it for the living and dead (again, not the literal Jesus who is in heaven) then it must follow propitiation to him is the second part of what I said before. Propitiation has two steps; atonement and reconciliation. So the death and blood of Christ atoned for sin. Now Cyril offers the anti type as a memorial in order to keep reconciling us to God, because reconciliation is a lifelong process of propitiation. The Romans don’t believe this. They say the Eucharist is a perpetuation of the cross, and every mass the work of our atonement is carried out. So no, I don’t like the language Cyril uses, but I don’t see where he believes he is worthy to offer Christ himself to God to “perpetuate” the atonement throughout eternity. I stand with what I said before, it is insulting to God.:dunno:
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2021
  3. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    232
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    To further prove the point. He compares what happens to the Eucharist to what happens to the chrism oil. And the water of baptism. After the invocation of the Holy Ghost, it is no longer common water, no longer common oil. And yet, there isn’t a metaphysical transubstantiation type of change. It is the consecration of a common thing by the power of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of the worship of the church that makes it holy.
    “ For as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer ordinary bread, but is the body of Christ; so this holy ointment is no longer a bare common ointment after it is consecrated, but is the gift or grace of Christ, which, by His Divine Nature, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, is made efficacious; so that the body is anointed with the ointment, but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit.”
    He has a pretty sound Eucharistic theology, I’d say, apart from his questionable use of propitiation.
     
  4. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I think you are “shooting the messenger” a little bit here. Although I genuinely get where you’re coming from, I doubt any Orthodox Christian would find it convincing. For one thing, I wasn’t relying solely on St. Cyril to illustrate the point. For another, even if St. Cyril had been the only one from that era to explicitly testify to that understanding, you have to remember why he is a saint in the first place and what that means for the kind of normative authority his writings would have. The Vincentian Canon doesn’t mean that tradition is a democracy, or that when the Fathers are generally silent on a matter of great importance to a latter era, that their silence implies disapproval. The 4th century was an unusually productive time from a literary perspective, full of conflict and controversy, and we know a lot about what happened then. St. Cyril was a very well known figure in his own day, and occupied a very important and highly visible episcopal see. If St. Cyril’s writings were so fundamentally at odds with what the rest of the Church was teaching at the time, one has to ask why no one pointed it out at the time, or why they would be held up as models for others to follow.
     
  5. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    232
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    It happened all the time though. People disagreed and could still esteem each other in high regard.

    I think it’s pretty obvious if Augustine has like 90 total paragraphs on the Eucharist and not a single one mentions propitiatory sacrifice, then he didn’t believe it. It’s the same argument the Romans use. Why did nobody mention papal infallibility, the assumption of Mary like 800 years after, the immaculate conception. “Oh well, that’s an argument from silence. It proves nothing.”
    And so they go on.
    I don’t think Cyril was teaching anything especially troubling, like I showed. So no one should’ve had issues with it. I know an orthodox wouldn’t find it convincing, just like a Roman wouldn’t find it convincing all secular historians agree the papacy was a development. Some people just don’t care about facts or logic or the truth. The orthodox are just as weirdly obsessed with the Eucharist being the physical living Jesus. I read some priests have eaten chunks of “bread” some child vomited at church. I think it’s quite obvious not a single orthodox rubs Jesus on their face. In fact, if you search that up, you’ll find catholic websites completely freaking out about it and saying it’s either spurious or Cyril was a heretic…
    I mean, really. Imagine a Roman or orthodox in present time rubbing the Eucharist bread on their face. They’d be excommunicated on the spot. Many of the early fathers also used the word anti type for the Eucharist. I don’t see RC or EO ever saying that. I think it’s clear the meaning is the same one as in Hebrews. I’m not claiming they believe the same thing I do. If they believe the Eucharist is an earthly lesser “copy” of the body of Christ, by all means, it must be treated with much reverence and maybe you even need to pick up crumbs from the floor you drop and eat them. But that’s a long stretch from eating vomit bread or burning the price carpet at church the Eucharist fell on. And none of the early fathers believed the Eucharist was the body blood soul and divinity even in the wine. The orthodox clearly have a different doctrine but I don’t expect them to admit it ever. These people think the Jew luke was the first icon painter and taught people to “venerate” icons lol.
    So on account of all of this, how can Cyril and the current orthodox Eucharist be one and the same? Their propitiation and cyrils are worlds apart. He rubs the Eucharist in his face!:laugh:
    And yes I know I’m preaching to the choir:p you’re not orthodox I’m aware of that. But you’re employing some of their apologetics tactics, and I feel it’s because while you don’t agree, you can see where they’re coming from. I’m not like that at all. I don’t agree with something, and if I find it ridiculous, I will say so. Like eating Eucharist vomit:sick:
    Or saying you offer the living breathing Jesus on your altar every Sunday morning for atonement.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  6. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I have never heard of this.
     
  7. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    232
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    I wish I hadn’t :laugh:
     
  8. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    232
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Same thing I’ve always thought. The truth is always under attack! But the church became so proud and triumphant it forgot, it is the pillar of truth. And a pillar holds up something, it does not lord over it. What the church is supposed to protect is the teaching of the apostles, which are found in the scriptures. But both the RC and EO teach as doctrines things that aren’t in the scripture, and even teach things contradictory to the scriptures.
    the only reason why it bothers me so much is that, well, it’s been 2000 years. The period from Abraham to Christ was around the same thing. Did Jews get it wrong shortly after the beginning like the church has done? I don’t recall most of Judaism going into idolatry and at least not coming back from it. I know they lost the book of the law for a while but then found it. The church isn’t in idolatry when it teaches questionable doctrines, so maybe that’s why it lasted so long.
     
  9. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I think you've got it exactly backwards: isn't the whole history of the Old Testament a history of defeat and decline? The Prophets increasingly get more shrill and desperate, until Isaiah is finally like, look, the only chance you have is now through the Messiah, it's over for you all on your own.

    This is one of the proofs that the Old Testament is a divine text, and not a product of human hands, because all other human ancestral narratives are triumphant. The people win in the end, they are the best, they triumph. Here, the Jews write of themselves that they lose, they're worth nothing, and it's fine if they become destroyed by the world's powers. What people write that about themselves? No people; this was written from God's vantage point. From his vantage point, no human narrative can be written triumphantly. How did the Jews know to write this about themselves? About their beloved parents, as worth nothing? That's divine inspiration.

    The OT narrative shows us Hebrews failing more and more, and falling further and further away from God, so that by the time of John the Baptist it is barely worth mentioning. The religion of the one true God, barely worth mentioning. That's the history, by the end of the OT, and the start of the NT.
     
  10. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    232
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes you’re right about the OT. So you think that’s what happened to the church? A slow decline in the quality of the church and it’s doctrine?
     
  11. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Ultimately I think there is the one difference that the Church will win and triumph in the end, because this time around the Messiah himself is here and the Holy Ghost governs it. So what we'll see is a series of deaths but followed by odd/unexpected restorations. That's the only difference from the OT. But yeah I definitely think the history of the OT is a powerful type of the life of the Church. A never-ending struggle, constant inclination to defeat, faith evidenced in those who stand tall regardless; followed by unexpected restorations.

    Hard time makes strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make hard times.
     
    Jellies likes this.
  12. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    232
    Likes Received:
    92
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Which is why it surprises me that after the 5th century the church became so full of itself that it thought it’s own councils infallible even when it had no basis in scripture. I think a lot of unbelievers must have been in the ranks of the church. And it’s very apparent by the way they behaved. Image worshippers, for example, burned all the writings of the “heretic iconoclasts” after the council of the 8th century. When you read it, you see biblical illiteracy is rampant. It’s nothing like the 1 st council of Nicaea which is grounded in scripture and what the apostles taught. I think a lot of this had to do with the church becoming entrenched in empire politics, and a lot of bishops being greedy and having personal agendas along with the emperors. The more entrenched the church becomes with secular government and focuses on worldly things instead of the kingdom of God, the worse it got. And this can’t be more obvious than the Roman pope, who has declared himself supreme leader (sounds like North Korean regime lol) and pastor of the whole church. Roman Catholicism was clearly born out of the Roman Empire, and out of falsehood. The donation of Constantine and several other spurious works were used in order to establish papal supremacy over the ages. Idk how people can’t see that’s not how a Christian church behaves. If your Christian leaders are doing abominable things, then they are unbelievers. If they are unbelievers then they won’t lead the councils in the right direction. Jesus Christ held us accountable to the scriptures, whether we read them or not doesn’t matter. The Romans and EO don’t get this, they don’t realize that most of the church can be lead astray in councils, and God will let the church be lead astray at times when it turns from his truth.
    I think a lot of people misinterpret the gates of hades will not prevail. It means that death will never conquer the church, that the truth will never stop existing. I do agree the church is lead by the Holy Spirit, but the institution of the church is part of the church, but not the whole church. The institutional church can err in its decrees and yet the true believers will always have the faith.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2021
    Stalwart likes this.
  13. Jim Bob

    Jim Bob New Member

    Posts:
    12
    Likes Received:
    4
    yeah id be interested too
     
  14. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I write about this council, and if it even existed at all, here:
    https://forums.anglican.net/threads...ncil-of-rome-and-the-canon-of-scripture.4442/
     
    Rexlion likes this.