On the Reality of the Eucharist: Part Two

So, to recap, we have four "basic" understandings that we could take from those three passages:

1. Eucharist is a command and the real flesh and blood of Christ.
2. Communion is a command, but is metaphorical.
3. Communion is not a command, but is real flesh and blood.
4. Communion is not a command, and was just symbolic.

Number three seems the least likely to be forwarded, but remains plausible from a strictly textual standpoint.

I have a few passages from various early church fathers to post here, and I'll explain them after the jump:

On the Reality of the Eucharist: Part One

There are several approaches one can take to discussing / debating the sacraments (in particular the Eucharist) with those who teach a “merely symbolic” view.  Generally, those holding to a non-sacramental view believe in sola-scriptura, and this complicates the debate.  Any argument you utilize (even from Scripture) may or may not be dismissed as mere adherence to tradition.  As such, the debate on this issue typically falls back into a debate on sola-scriptura vs. not-sola-scriptura.  One approach, then, is simply to argue against sola-scriptura.

A second approach is to refuse to engage in the sola-scriptura debate and to focus on deep exegetical debates over the relevant passages of Scripture.  Ultimately, I do think this can succeed, but not in a short and casual debate.  Additionally, though many won’t like what I’m about to say, the Scriptures have a lot of ambiguity.  That makes debating over them rather difficult.  It’s the same difficulty people have in debating over literature – there are “better” interpretations (more insightful, more honest to the text), but it is difficult to establish (on the basis of the text itself) a single, correct, interpretation.  Indeed, even the literary theory (new historicist, formalist, phenomenological, etc.) can vary.  In a certain sense, this is the real issue between sola-scriptura and more traditional systems.  We agree (to a point) on the text, but have different theories of interpretation.

So a third approach, the one I prefer and will use in this post, is to utilize the debate over the meaning of the Eucharist to demonstrate WHY sola-scriptura produces more division and tradition works better to produce concrete answers.  This works, in particular, because the earliest sources really do show a consensus on the meaning of communion.  Why?  Because the docetist heresy denied the Eucharist’s reality (along with denying that Christ ever had a body at all), and this gave occasion to orthodox writers to defend the reality of the Eucharist.

Continued below the jump.

Theism Part One: The Argument from Change

Just as I'm doing a series on the papacy, examining a complex and multifaceted issue in "smaller" chunks, so I'd like to compose a cumulative case for the existence of God.  Note that, for the Orthodox, none of these are THE reason we believe in God.  We believe (both in the sense of "believing in existence of" and "trusting") in God because of the revelation of Jesus Christ and our direct experience of God's presence in prayer and sacrament.

However, there ARE some DECENT arguments pointing towards God's existence, and in a world like ours where secularism is assumed (and religion viewed as mere personal choice), an apologetic argument or series of arguments in favor of God's existence can be helpful.  In particular, it shows that belief in God is not mere mythology nor mere psychology, but ALSO intellectually probable and reasonible.  This will matter more for some than for others, but its good to have these arguments in your toolbox if the right situation happens to arise.

This post assumes basic familiarity with syllogistic argumentation (two or more premises leading to a logically necessary conclusion).  If someone doubts one of the two premises, then it becomes necessary to defend that premise with an additional syllogism or as an axiomatic necessity.

The argument from change comes after the jump:

On the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness & the Atonement

This is one of the more difficult subjects to address, as there are significant differences between modern evangelical protestantism and orthodoxy on this exact point.  To say that the doctrine of imputed righteousness formed a cornerstone for non-Anglican protestantism (starting with Luther) would be an understatement.  Alongside sola-scriptura, it is one of the few things that virtually all protestants have in common (historically). 

The doctrine, in essence, goes like this: we are born with a sinful nature (so that sinning is as unavoidable and natural to us as having eyes or feet).  We cannot avoid this, and, due to sin, owe to God an unpayable debt.  In Christ, through Christ's faithfulness, the ultimate and unpayable debt for our sins is absolved as, on the Cross, Christ accepted the punishment which was due to us for our sins.  When we place our faith in Christ, then, God views us through "Christ-tinted-glasses" - He sees not our sinfulness, but rather imputes Christ's righteousness (including Christ's payment of our debt) to us. 

More after the jump.

On the Coptic-Armenian-Ethiopian Churches

Orthodox Christians frequently complain about the way that our popular culture categorizes Christians as either "Catholic" or "Protestant."  We hasten to point out that a third category (Orthodox) also exists.  Yet, in using three categories, we do a disservice to the fourth "branch" of Christianity: the non-Chalcedonian churhces.  These are the churches that reject the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD, which defined the Church's current language about the Incarnation.

I intend, at some point, to post some material from different scholars about the controversial actions of that council.  In the mean time, I want to offer an overview for Orthodox Christians on what it is that separates our communion from the largest of the non-Chalcedonian communions: the Copts.  The Coptic communion, which includes Armenians, Ethiopians and some Syrians, holds around 50 to 60 million members (about 60% as large as the worldwide Anglican communion).  The majority of these (around 40 million) are Ethiopian.  Of ALL the non-Orthodox communions, they are the closest to us and the most likely to be reunited to Orthodoxy within our lifetimes. 

What is it that still separates us?  Continue reading!

On the Importance of Missions

Christ is Risen!

I'm on the mailing list for St. Vladimir's Seminary, so every once in a while they send me a request for donations.  Once a year, they include a small theological tract with the mailing.  This year, that tract spoke to the missional vocation given to all Christians through baptism.  I found it highly encouraging, and wanted to share a few thoughts from it with you all.

The pamphlet's author, Fr. Hatfield, has spent significant time in missions - first as a Protestant (in South Africa) and then with Orthodoxy (on the board of the Orthodox Christian Missions Center, and as a co-chair of the OCA Department of Evangelism).  He's working on an expanding set of courses in missiology for St. Vlad's. 

He opens with an audacious quote: "Christian initiation and its attendant rite of baptism is the proper and primary business of the Church."

Think about it for a minute.  Yes - we would say the Eucharist holds center, but the early church tended to view the Eucharist as the continuation of the Baptismal regeneration.  We are indeed commanded to eat the bread and drink the cup often, but Christ's final words to His community as His ascension were "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  After the Church had gained ascendency over the empire, Baptism became less of a focus and Eucharist (especially in the West in the 800's) rose dramatically in its centrality.  This is not to say that either one has been dismissed by the Church at any time - both are vital.  But, as Fr. Hatfield explains the quote, "The Orthodox Church is in the business of making converts."  He quotes Archbishop Anastasios of Albania as saying: "A Church without mission is a contradiction in terms... Indifference to mission is a negation of Orthodoxy."  Hatfield then makes the strongest claim in the text, expanding the idea to say: "A Christian not engaged in mission is simply not a Christian."

More after the jump

On the Validity of the Papacy, Part II

This is a continuation of part I.  You can read this post on its own, but some of the assumptions I make here (about what must be true for the papacy, as currently utilized by the Roman Catholic Church, to be a valid doctrine) are argued in that prior post.

In this post, I want to examine the tradition of the papacy in the earliest church (AD 33 - 180).  Why this time period?  Well, the number of sources are limited enough to examine in one post and, as the earliest time period of the church, we ought to expect the papacy (if it is Holy Tradition) to at least appear in seedling form during this time.  In other words, based on the definition of catholicity given in part I, this is a critical time period to examine for the case for the papacy.