Stephen
17-01-2007, 06:39 PM
I found this interesting statement in a debate between an Orthodox and Reformed Presbyterian. Unfortunately, the Orthodox did not respond to this statement. I am wondering what the correct Orthodox response would be to this:
On the Mystery of the Eucharist:
The so-called Orthodox declare this sacrament (as both we and the Papists call it) to be a mystery. It would interesting to see what Othodox authority you believe you can find that teaches that “the bread and wine are truely transformed … into the very Holy Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ” while explaining that “true transformation” is not a matter of iconography. That is to say, it will be hard to find any Orthodox writer (and here I clearly exclude the post-schism papists) prior to the 1680’s who denied that the elements of the Lord’s Supper were transformed into the very body and blood of Christ in a non-iconic manner.
Even the heterodox council of the late 700’s (frequently refered to as the “seventh ecumenical council), which sinfully promoted the making and using of supposed images of Christ for the purpose of worship (acts of allegedly representational iconography), did not deny what the previous council of thirty years prior had stated, which is that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are a divinely appointed icon of Christ.
Indeed, Reformed Christians do believe that the elements are the body and blood of Christ, as can be seen from an examination of, for example, the Westminster standards.
On the “True Presence”
All of the Early Fathers who spoke on the subject spoke of the elements after the blessing as bread and cup while acknowledging the presence of God in the sacrament. Be careful to distinguish between the Orthodox mystery, and the papist heresy of physical transformation. The Reformed doctrine is an explanation of the mystery that is not inconsistent with the traditions of the so-called Orthodox. It simply goes beyond what the so-called Orthodox explain. Certainly there are Protestants who depart from both the Reformed and so-called Orthodox explanation.
As for raising the question of departure from Tradition:
The Reformed view that the elements of the sacrament are an icon of Christ, not Christ’s genetic material, is confirmed by earlier Christian writings than the heresy of physical transformation. So also is the Reformed rejection of representational iconography confirmed by an earlier council than its affirmation.
Thus, the burden of establishing consistency with “tradition” should be placed on the apparent innovators.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the Reformed position depends on the Scriptures, and claims the authority of the Scriptures. Taking the Reformed claims at face value, the question is not who has departed from tradition (for Scripture is certainly the highest of Traditions, if there are Traditions) but whether the non-Scripture traditions are truly apostolic. In other words, outside of Scripture, which are truly the Apostolic Traditions?
It’s not a trivial question, since not only the so-called Orthodox, but also the Armenians, the Ethopics, the Coptics, and the papists (not to mention many others) all allegedly follow apostolic tradition, and yet differ in many points.
Furthermore, the traditions of the so-called Orthodox churches have changed over the years, and it is increasingly rare in the United States, for example, to see women observing the tradition of head-covering (both in Reformed and so-called Orthodox churches - we are both guilty of deviation from that tradition), and it is exceedingly rare that the so-called Orthodox tradition of separating the sexes is maintained.
So, what is the point? The point is that TJH’s comment that your claims of adherence to apostolic tradition beg the question in the logical sense. They engage in “petitio principis,” if my memory of the Latin serves me well. They assume the point to be proved.
On the Mystery of the Eucharist:
The so-called Orthodox declare this sacrament (as both we and the Papists call it) to be a mystery. It would interesting to see what Othodox authority you believe you can find that teaches that “the bread and wine are truely transformed … into the very Holy Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ” while explaining that “true transformation” is not a matter of iconography. That is to say, it will be hard to find any Orthodox writer (and here I clearly exclude the post-schism papists) prior to the 1680’s who denied that the elements of the Lord’s Supper were transformed into the very body and blood of Christ in a non-iconic manner.
Even the heterodox council of the late 700’s (frequently refered to as the “seventh ecumenical council), which sinfully promoted the making and using of supposed images of Christ for the purpose of worship (acts of allegedly representational iconography), did not deny what the previous council of thirty years prior had stated, which is that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are a divinely appointed icon of Christ.
Indeed, Reformed Christians do believe that the elements are the body and blood of Christ, as can be seen from an examination of, for example, the Westminster standards.
On the “True Presence”
All of the Early Fathers who spoke on the subject spoke of the elements after the blessing as bread and cup while acknowledging the presence of God in the sacrament. Be careful to distinguish between the Orthodox mystery, and the papist heresy of physical transformation. The Reformed doctrine is an explanation of the mystery that is not inconsistent with the traditions of the so-called Orthodox. It simply goes beyond what the so-called Orthodox explain. Certainly there are Protestants who depart from both the Reformed and so-called Orthodox explanation.
As for raising the question of departure from Tradition:
The Reformed view that the elements of the sacrament are an icon of Christ, not Christ’s genetic material, is confirmed by earlier Christian writings than the heresy of physical transformation. So also is the Reformed rejection of representational iconography confirmed by an earlier council than its affirmation.
Thus, the burden of establishing consistency with “tradition” should be placed on the apparent innovators.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the Reformed position depends on the Scriptures, and claims the authority of the Scriptures. Taking the Reformed claims at face value, the question is not who has departed from tradition (for Scripture is certainly the highest of Traditions, if there are Traditions) but whether the non-Scripture traditions are truly apostolic. In other words, outside of Scripture, which are truly the Apostolic Traditions?
It’s not a trivial question, since not only the so-called Orthodox, but also the Armenians, the Ethopics, the Coptics, and the papists (not to mention many others) all allegedly follow apostolic tradition, and yet differ in many points.
Furthermore, the traditions of the so-called Orthodox churches have changed over the years, and it is increasingly rare in the United States, for example, to see women observing the tradition of head-covering (both in Reformed and so-called Orthodox churches - we are both guilty of deviation from that tradition), and it is exceedingly rare that the so-called Orthodox tradition of separating the sexes is maintained.
So, what is the point? The point is that TJH’s comment that your claims of adherence to apostolic tradition beg the question in the logical sense. They engage in “petitio principis,” if my memory of the Latin serves me well. They assume the point to be proved.