Comments on: Liturgical Gangstas 11: Be Perfect? What?

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Fri, 08 May 2009 02:42:17 +0000

Not so much for me, it is more like a different way to view at the same thing. And yet discrive it precisely the way it means to us.

When the East discrives the Eucharist they don’t try to rationalize it they simply call for what it is a Holy Mystery.

The West defines the the Eucharist when it descrives it and over indulges on the analysis of the Sacrament.

Yet the East and West both agree on what it is which is the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.

By: Fr. Orthohippo

Fr. Orthohippo — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:50:21 +0000

“substantial” I like that too. I just don’t know what it means. Our individual (denominational) cultural blinders make it really hard to actually have a common definition of terms.

It reminds me of the tower of Babel.

By: mome

mome — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:54:40 +0000

“substantial” I like that.

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Wed, 06 May 2009 06:11:12 +0000

1. Again this is one of those things that will not be resolved until all parties meet in a real “substantial” way (Get it?) Meaning beyond the nice words and PR stuff.

2. I think that depends on the individual Orthodox Churches.

3. Agreed.

By: mome

mome — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:19:24 +0000

To point No. 1: I’m not sure about that. Maybe. To begin with, there has been some divergence on the whole concept of “substance,” which surely toys with any attempt at agreement about the use of the word “transubstantiation.”

Point No. 2: Yes. Though I think the Orthodox haven’t make a particular effort to classify any or most of the Roman councils after 1054.

Point No. 3: Indeed. It was the first that came to mind, and it has the coolest nickname. There are better examples, though. Florence would be one.

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Tue, 05 May 2009 02:25:39 +0000

In that case Mome we are back at square one, I say “tomato” and you say “tomato” and yet we don’t mean what you think we mean.

As for an Ecumenical Council as both accepted by the East and the West like I said we are ways away from that. So I guess we will continue to call each councils “local.”

As far as the “robber council” well yeah, but that revolved very interesting circumstances that are not likely to ever repeat them selves.

By: mome

mome — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:29:12 +0000

OK, in that case, then I meant to say there is no back door at all.

In Orthodoxy, the statements of even a general council can be rejected. Witness the “robber council” of Ephesus. No council is authoritative until it has the ratification of acceptance by the Church at large, which itself is something of an amorphous process.

As for the filioque, it’s too complex a topic to discuss here, but the primary reason for objecting to it is not because it wasn’t added with a council, but because of its trinitarian implications.

Peace.

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:19:45 +0000

Mome, if there was any “real” back door agreement on Transubstantiation then it wouldnt be the back door.

And there is more than “some similarities” from the Orthodox, there is at least two local councils that even though they do not endorse the definition, they do everything but.

Still I don’t expect the Orthodox to adopt anything until they actualy come to a general council and as you well know we are not there yet.

Same thing for the western addition to the Creed. Again the Orthodox object not because they think its bad theology but because it was added without a council. Which I can understand and of course are right about. They should not be obligated to add anything they have not agreed to.

As far as supererogation I need to do further reading on it, but from the light research I have made it seems yet another one of those terms that Protestants seem attach to their imaginary, work based salvation theory of the Catholic Church.

By: bruce

bruce — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:21:59 +0000

Rev Cwirla, God bless you for reminding us that we can’t polish the buttons on our robe of righteousness. We’ll only tarnish them! We can just wear it, admire it, “brag on it”! God help us from going into the desert to contemplate it. We should instead, in the highways and the hedges where we live, advertise this glorious robe, and tell everyone where to get one. I suspect THAT”LL bring a smile to the Father.

By: Fr. Orthoduck

Fr. Orthoduck — Sun, 03 May 2009 04:20:19 +0000

I have posted a much more complex post–warning heavy philosophy–on the whole issue of theology and overlaps at http://www.orthocuban.com/2009/05/on-theology-and-set-theory/