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.
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.
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! And yes I know I’m preaching to the choir 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 Or saying you offer the living breathing Jesus on your altar every Sunday morning for atonement.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/