Posted on 02/24/2007 4:59:51 PM PST by stfassisi
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, called the Eucharist the “medicine of immortality” (A.D. 110, Letter to the Ephesians 20:2). Concerning “those who hold heretical opinions,” he wrote, “note how contrary they are to the mind of God. … They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by His goodness raised up” (A.D. 110, Letter to the Smyrneans 6:2-7:1).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem expressed the Eucharistic faith of the early Church in his catechetical lectures: “Therefore, when He has spoken and says about the bread, ‘This is My Body,’ who will have the nerve to doubt any longer? And, when He affirms clearly, ‘This is My Blood,’ who will then doubt, saying that it is not His Blood? Once, by His own will, He changed water into wine at Cana in Galilee; is He not worthy of belief when He changes wine into blood? ... Do not judge the reality by taste but, having full assurance from faith, realize that you have been judged worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ. … Having learned these things, you have complete certitude that the visible bread is not bread, even if it is such to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and the visible wine is not wine, even if taste thinks it such, but the Blood of Christ” (A.D. 350, Mystagogic Catechesis 4:1,2,6,9).
Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood remains in Me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56).
The early Christians knew that the Lord was not speaking of a mere symbol.
Ping!
There are times when Protestant churches are their own worst enemies. The author's confusion is understandable, but unfortunate. There are a few great Protestant preachers who are consistent year in and year out. My favorite is John MacArthur...he was my pastor while I was in seminary, and I trained under him for several years.
The point about Orthodox moral positions was interesting. I am not sure, but I think the Orthodox churches in the US may differ from their European counterparts in some of these areas. One of the problems was that the US Orthodox churches, wishing to distance themselves from the Catholic Church, fell into the Protestant ambit and I think were rather influenced by it. There were Orthodox churches in the NCC, for example, and a lot of Orthodox felt very comfortable with the Episcopalians. I think this may have changed now that the Episcopalians have so clearly gone off the rails, but in other areas (contraception, divorce, etc.) the Orthodox are probably still close to the Protestants, although I think they uniformly reject abortion.
One thing to bear in mind, however, as the author points out, is that even up to the early part of the 20th century, the Protestant churches had pretty much the same policy as the Catholic Church on moral issues. But once the change came, it was a landslide.
This should be an interesting thread.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:11-18"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
1 John 2:19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Can you offer a timeline for when this article was written?
I am wondering if this artcile is 4-5 years old.
In general conversation Protestants don't sit around and describe themselves as Protestants. We will describe ourselves as Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.
Every church teaches something different. Every pastor interprets the Bible according to his own personal beliefs.
EVERY? She has been to EVERY "Protestant" church???
Sorry. I can't read past these silly generalizations.
IMHO, I don't perceive the article is written by believers seeking to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ more than they simply are seeking religious fulfilment of a social institution which offers scarcity of moral dilemmas in a worldly environment.
The answer is much simpler. Simple faith in God thrugh faith in Christ, allowing God's grace to do all the work and remaining obedient to Him in all things, with all our mind, soul and strength and heart, and loving our fellow man as ourselves. Let God the Holy Spirit perform all the work in our thinking regarding our learning in Scripture and stop dwelling on manmade arguments.
Perhaps in His plan they were simply meant to wander between denominations blythely absorbing only tidbits of Scripture and His will so that they might be at the right place at the right time in the future. Then again, maybe they've been chasing after something they seek from their own intent rather than simply resting in faith in Him through Christ, resulting in a merry-go-round worldly life with ups and downs of periodic spirituality.
I rejoice, though, that His providence has prepared places for them in their journey.
In the Catholic Church, the sacrament of marriage is performed by the couple themselves and the priest is essentially a witness to the covenant entered into by them and blesses it. For a marriage between baptized Christians to be valid, they need to have a valid intention to enter into an indissoluble marriage, be open to having children, and have no obstacles. (The Orthodox view is different, and "confers" marriage.)
It was once considered by the Church that most types of marriages between non-Catholics, particularly in the non-liturgical churches, lacked the components to make them valid, and therefore didn't constitute genuine marriages. However, this changed at some point in recent years (don't know when). I think it was meant to be a gesture of respect to other Christians, but the reality was that it has made things more difficult for people coming into the Church. In my opinion, if they got married in a church (let alone a secular environment) that has no problem with divorce and where marriages really aren't considered indissoluble and where not having children is the norm, can they really be said to have entered into a valid marriage? I'm no canonist, but it doesn't seem that way to me. Most of the time, of course, lack of a valid intention is the basis for their annulment, but it seems to me to be a cumbersome system.
In any case, I don't agree with her on the heresy point, but certainly the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox views of marriage are one of the points of discussion. But I'm not sure, as I said, if the attitude regarding divorce, etc. is true of Orthodoxy in general, or is something picked up in the United States because at one time the Orthodox churches in the US had a fair amount of contact with Protestants, and very liberal ones at that (NCC).
“Well, all we can do is choose the denomination that’s most faithful to the Bible.”
“So we decide what the Bible means? We decide what’s true? Then the Bible isn’t our final authority – we are.”
I don't believe for a second that this conversation actually happened. It's too canned. Right out of just about every "swimming the Tiber" testimonial.
Not to mention the inevitable logical fallacy embraced by the new convert: Churches B through Z all teach something different; therefore, church A is right. This ignores the possibility that church A is wrong too, and maybe church K is right.
Of course, if you call them on that, then circular logic kicks in. Church A is incapable of error; therefore church A is right.
"There were Orthodox churches in the NCC, for example, and a lot of Orthodox felt very comfortable with the Episcopalians. I think this may have changed now that the Episcopalians have so clearly gone off the rails, but in other areas (contraception, divorce, etc.) the Orthodox are probably still close to the Protestants, although I think they uniformly reject abortion."
The reason some of the Orthodox Churches here are in the NCC is because the Church of Constantinople was among the founders of the WCC back in the post WWI days. Some Orthodox Churches have removed themselves from this wicked organization, the Antiochians for example. The GOA and the OCA are still in but I suspect its just a matter of time before they leave too. The argument for staying in is to witness to The Truth...but I don't buy it. I don't know what the Protestant attitude towards birth control is. Ours is that it is a matter between the couple and their spiritual father but abortion and any abortifacient contraceptive device is absolutely forbidden.
Relations with the Episcopalians were indeed close at the hierarchial level at end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. In fact, there was a virtual communion. The then presiding hierarch of Orthodoxy here realized he had been sold a bill of theological goods by the Episcopalian hierarchs and issued a encyclical instructing the Faithful to have nothing to do with the Episcopalians. Its quite harsh. Attitudes towards the Episcopalians among the faithful however stayed quite warm. Personally I think it was a manifestation of an immigrant, mostly peasant generation wanting to "pass for white". It became a practice for some to attend an Episcopal Church if an Orthodox one wasn't readily available and people actually believed that The Church approved of this. My family never did that and in fact was quite vociferous in condemning it. That practice pretty much died out in the 1970s with the death of the immigrant generation. It was never widespread. In a strange way, it actually worked out well for us. Many of our thoroughly Americanized leftist Orthodox (never very many, but unfortunately among the best educated and successful of our people) left Orthodoxy for Episcopalianism around the time that group started going off the rails with its women's ordinations and "new gospel" of social activism and feminist heresy. As one said to me many years ago, we are attracted to the Episcopals' attitude towards women! Anyway, it was one of those "Don't let the door hit you in the fanny on the way out" sort of things.
I agree, I think there are some things to be worked out. As I say, the Catholic view was always essentially that the sacrament was performed by the couple themselves - but I also do not see how it could be valid if it lacked the intention (which would pretty much be the case in many Protestant churches and secular settings). I think by extending "automatic" validity to just about anything between baptized Christians, Church authorities ultimately made the whole thing a good deal more complicated than it needs to be, and actually ended up muddying the waters.
A very interesting explanation of the NCC/Orthodox connection and also of the fondness of Episcopalianism! I think you're also right that this was a case of immigrants trying to fit in and reject what they saw as the immigrant stigma by becoming more white-bread American than anybody else.
I hope all the Orthodox churches leave the NCC. I suspect that in recent years a lot of thought has been given to some of these issues in the Orthodox churches in America, and they are probably still in the process of defining themselves and clarifying their doctrine, or at least its expression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.