Mass

It's not about not feeling Holy enough. It's about the effectiveness of Christ's death on the cross. Was His death a once and for all thing that never has to be repeated or do we need to partake of it again each week at mass? Even if you say it is the same sacrifice you are still recycling that same sacrifice and it really scares me that Catholics and orthodox do this. It's like they don't truly have peace with God and to save their souls they need to go confession, mass and partake of other sacraments.
Also, I'm not sure about your definition of sacrifice. Yes it is to make the person it's being done for Holy but the method is still the same.

Honestly, if you guys could explain the mass in light of Hebrews 10:1-3 and explain how it does not contradict that. Then it would be fine with me. that's the only reason why I'm not convinced by the "it's the same sacrifice" arguement.

Here's the thing: practicing the sacraments is something that's always been done by the Church. Circa ~150AD or so, Justin Martyr recorded the liturgical worship practices at the time, and the basic form then is exactly the same as it is now: group prayers of the whole congregation, readings from Scripture, and finally, and most importantly, the celebration of the Eucharist by baptized Christians who had rightly prepared themselves (ie, Confessed their sins prior to partaking of the Eucharist.) Either the true Faith had already disappeared by 150 AD, or the celebration of the Sacraments is the true practice of the Church.

I'm curious how this can be your "only" hangup about the Church. The celebration of the Eucharist is one of the cornerstones of the Church's understanding of life itself, and without it, everything else falls apart.

I think it's blasphemous to the crucifixion of Christ. It turns it into another one of the OT sacrifices. I believe that the crucifixion was done once and for all. Never to be repeated never to be represented.

Yeah, I read Justin. But I don't mind the whole mass, just seeing it as a sacrifice. Justin martyr refers to Malachi and sees the mass as a grain offering. If you know what the grain offering is it wasn't propitiatory. It was more celebratory. But the Catholic and Eastern orthodox church consider it to be propitiatory and a representation of Calvary. That's an issue for me and something I can't accept in fears of losing my salvation.

So you avoid the cross, as well? Seems totally legit.

What do you mean?

Do you think that Christ expects every individual to tackle the immense task of sorting through theology for themselves, or do you believe that he left us a Church which would guide us in the understanding of Him?

The Bible does say that we have to read the scriptures and meditate on it day and night. So I think He does expect some level of competence on our part. But I do agree that we do need the church to somehow guide us.

Scrupulosity.

My point in asking that was - and I suppose this is anecdotal, so take it as you will - that we should seek out the Church not by looking for what prickly points of doctrine perfectly match our preconceived understanding of theology (for if our understanding of theology does not come from the Church, then from where? Ourselves?), but rather that we should look and see what bears fruit in the world, and plainly see that it is the Body of Christ. The anecdotal bit here being, that when I myself converted to Orthodoxy, it was not due to some amazing apologetic or by watching hours of debate. Instead, it was be simply looking with unclouded eyes at the churches that called themselves the Church, and seeing which, if any, gave the appearance of the Church God Himself had founded, what thing on earth, if there was such a thing, had the unmistakable presence of the divine. When I realized that the Orthodox Church was this, it was a simple matter to discard any prior knowledge I'd had about the world, and to fully open my mind and heart to what the Church teaches us is true. I am no mastermind theologian, and I doubt you, or anyone else here is. I am unable to give you a unequivocal, incontestable defense of any point of doctrine. But what I can give you is the testimony of my own eyes, seeing that the Church is True, and that thusly what she teaches must be True.

We're supposed to die with Christ.

Thanks for that. I now have a better understanding of why you believe what it is that you believe. You story reminds of the the story of the prince of Kiev. He goals all around the world and looks at all the major religions and sides with the eastern orthodox church due to its "divine" liturgy. And although some might bash you for that, I can understand why that would appeal to you. In fact a couple weeks back I was talking to a guy at church and his family member became a orthodox over in America. The history, tradition. Smells and bells is very captivating. But the thing I'm asking now isn't idiophora. It's a question that literally means the difference between salvation and damnation (to respond to this user

)

One verse that comes to mind would be 1 Peter 3:15:

True

You stated that the crucifixion was never to be represented and I asked you if you avoid the cross.

Oh, I meant as a sacrifice. Catholics and Eastern orthodox believe that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that makes present again the sacrifice of Calvary. I've heard it being described as going to mass is like taking a time machine back to the 1st century and approaching the cross. It's not a different sacrifice but each mass is like a time machine back and you are again taking part in the passion. This is something I disagree with.
My church is super iconoclastic and we don't even have crucifixes. Bretty based thought. But the crucifix is just a symbol not the real thing.

The sacrifice is for us, like a doctor giving the patience medicine. I can't explain it much better than this, I'm not a theologian.
I've read that it's because we're inside time and so are God's energies but not His essence. And you'd be mistaking the two. But that would need you two accept essence-energies distinction.

Yes, there is the heresy of thinking sacraments are magic spells. They are not.
orthochristian.com/93962.html

Think of them like this: Does a cancer patient NEED to drink a cup of orange juice, eat chicken soup and such? Technically no, but good nutrition is helpful to the point of being mandatory. And the Hospital has the Tradition of giving it to its patients because it works.
So is going to Liturgy every Sunday at least and daily prayer. It's not like you'll suffer in the afterlife because you ate meat on a Friday, but fasting is good for us. The Hospital of the Soul is the Church, and its treatment is the liturgical practices such as the fasting calendar.
Don't start from the premise of utilitarianism, or you won't understand the meaning.

I'm triggered. Symbol does not mean sign. A symbol is a material representation of a higher reality that is truly present in the matter. The Eucharist is a symbol, Christ is truly present in it. Just like it's in Icons.
youtube.com/watch?v=kj4tU-hOh9A

What exactly do you mean? Orthodoxy does not believe the Son had to convince the Father or something like that on the Cross.
We believe Sin is like a disease, and getting closer to God the cure. We pray and struggle to make good use of God's help to regain our "Ancient Beauty". That of Adam before (keyword) the Fall and that of the humanity of Jesus Christ, this is in the memorial service. youtube.com/watch?v=kbIhPsKuros

I don't know how the essences energies distinction has anything to do with this.

But as for the rest of your statement, I'd honestly become a eastern orthodox if that was what you believed. That the sacraments are nothing more than instruments of Grace. In my church, the Presbyterian church, we believe in two sacraments (baptism and Lord's supper). And we believe that both water baptism and the Lord are more than just symbols and have some regenerating power. And we also believe that we receive grace by it. Just like your doctor with the medicine analogy, the graces we receive through the sacraments cure our depraved body and are like spiritual nourishment. But, quoting kallistos Ware's book (The orthodox church). He states.
Page 286

It's more than just medicine but an actual sacrifice.

I disagree with your definition of symbol. I mean the word presentation, not (re)presentation. The crucifix represents the historical event of. If you believe that the icons contain Christ then that means you can worship the icons as you would God. That's idolatry.

">We offer all: according to orthodox theology, the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice (in Greek, thysia hilastirios), offered on behalf of both living and the dead.

The orthodox way by kallistos ware. Page 286

You repeat again and again that it's propiatory but I want you ask you what do you conote by propiatory. Not Ware's denotations.
The conotation I'm familiar with is that:
1. God the Christ is being offered
2. To God the Trinity
3. For the cure of all humanity, dead or alive
You keep hammering the propriatory word down but I don't get what it bugs you about it.

The conotation of Symbol I said is that of the Orthodox Church, not something I assumed it means.
Symbols link us to such higher reality. Of course God's essence, his eternality, is not on a thing as matter can not encapsulate it, but the energy is how He talks to us.
As in, God is both far away and close. These are not in conflict, we don't do dialectics. This is what essence-energies distinction teaches and how symbols work. You can't divorce the two by ignoring it you won't understand symbology or Icons.

OP:
I know it's a bit of a canned response, but I have to pipe in that it would probably be best to just contact an Orthodox priest and ask him directly.

If you don't know what propitiatory means that's alright.
Propitiatory is a sacrifice done to atone for the sins the partaker. There is no difference between kallistos Ware's and my definition. If you would like to know more about what propitiatory means then I can refer you to some online resources that go through doctrinal words.

Now, the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. But just not any old one but rather the same sacrifice of the cross being made present now. Your definition seems no different to the Lutheran view. And before you say that they believe in consubstantiation I'll have to correct you since they also believe in the real presence just that they decide to define it differently. And if you don't believe me I'll refer you to their catechism.
Your definition of the mass isn't even orthodox and even contradicts your church is teaching. Then again it is kinda vague and if explained properly can be orthodox. But basically you represent God the Son to The God head. But what is being sacrificed and how it cures us you have not defined. What is being offered up is the same sacrifice each week. You are partaking in the crucifix every time you go mass and this is where my issue lies. How do you square up this belief with what is presented in Hebrews 10:1-3?

You're using the word "Symbol" in a different, and unique context. Most people when they use the word Symbol don't actually mean what you mean.

About this. I've also been thinking about the essence energies distinction. The orthodox view is that Gods essence is unknowable, unapproachable and we can never commune with it. But if the essences is so transcendent then how did it enter into human flesh? You'd have to believe that God's energy was in the flesh not His essence.

I did, I could tell by his answer and voice that he didn't really adequately answer my question. But I'll keep looking.

I know what propiatory means, I fail to see how you think it means it somehow belittles Christ to partake in it every week. We must partake in it weekly as medicine.
Heb 10 1-3 is talking about exactly why Christ's sacrifice is different from the OT. It's not a shadow, it's his very image.
Look at Heb 10:11-12. The Church does not repeat the Sacrifice, the Sacrifice is done once by Christ which is why he is sitting but the priest keeps standing, the Liturgy is not the sacrifice itself. The Liturgy does not make make mankind holy, that's absurd. The Liturgy is how we partake (keyword) in it every week.

Christ is fully God, both energy and essence. And it must be so otherwise the essence wouldn't even manifest the energies.
At any rate, energies cannot be in anything without essence, nor essence without energies since they are inseparable though distinct. Also valid for Eucharist, both are there.

It's more than medicine. If it was just that then protestants and Eastern orthodox wouldn't disagree. You believe that it actually atones for your sins.

This is more vauge and is why I use vs 1-3 since it's more specific and states why the OT sacrifices were insufficient. It wasn't do to the reputation but rather effectiveness of it.

And this is where I have issues. If Christ's atonement was truly once and for all you would never have to partake of it ever again. The benefits of Christ's death would be applied to once once for all time. But the fact that you have to continually partake of it means that it does not perfect and you need to repeatedly partake of it and the need to continually partake of it reminds you of your sins. You can say it's the same sacrifice but the way the OT sacrifices functioned is what made it faulty and the Cathodox mas functions the same way. Even if you say it's one in the same sacrifice.

Also, you didn't really address my question about how the super transcendent essence of God can enter human flesh.

How? Well, in terms of essence, the essence of the Eucharist is no different than the essence of the incarnate God-Man Christ. It's the same flesh.

As for how the elements of the Eucharist, the offered bread and wine, become that flesh? The Romists have dogmatized transubstantiation. The Orthodox Church teaches that the 'how' is an unknowable mystery.

The eastern orthodox church stresses the transcendence if the essence of God. How it's unapproachable, unknowable and we will never commune with it. But if this is so then how was it able to be contained in human flesh? If it can enter human flesh then there is no reason why we can't also commune with it. For example, the explain how God can wrest with Jacob and walk in the garden of Eden in genesis most EO theologians say it was the energies of God. But now you're saying this essence was able to enter human flesh.

Need, need, need. It's all about need with you.
I imagine you being diagnosed with cancer and asking the medic for the bare minimum. Singing is good, community is good, reading the Bible is good, breaking bread is good and partaking in God's ultimate Sacrifice is good. You can stop doing it when you stop sinning. That we both agree.
The Sacrifice after the Incarnation is only one. That of Christ. The partaking is multiple because Orthodoxy does not believe in a "once and for all" salvation like a switch. We believe in the medicine analogy. We do not believe there was something inherently bad about humanity, but that it was obfuscated. Now we have the medicine to clear the way to the Ancient Beauty. That is the key difference that justifies why we must and can partake in it multiple times.
I think you believe it "functions" the same way because a tape recorder from a distance would make it seem similar. There is more to Liturgy than atoms.

It's Jesus Christ who wrestles with Jacob.
The Incarnation itself is a mystery, yes. Catholics don't have essence-energies distinction, they just have essence/actus purus. Even without the energies they also agree it's a mystery.
Do you not think it is?

A mystery is one thing but what you displayed to me was a contradiction. But I really don't want to divert the thread into essence energies.

Back to the mass. So, if what you're saying is true then I'm all for it. In fact I already believe it. The Lord's supper is a tool in which we recieving Grace. It's spiritual nourishment that helps us with our day to day battle with God. But what I disagree with is the partaking part. You partake for the remissions of your sins. The crucifixion is being made present again and this is my issue. The sacrificial part not the medicine part.

Can I ask you a question that might make things a a bit clearer for the both of us? What does perfect mean in Hebrews 10:1?

I'm confused. Do you deny that the Incarnate Christ was fully human?

It's not a contradiction, it's the Theology that we can not explain in words the Incarnation.

Perfect means to remove fully the cloud of Sin. As Adam before the Fall.
Do you think humanity is free from it in this world as of the current date? Absolutely not.

No, the essence energies distinction seems contradictory.

If we have been perfected by Christ's death then how can the mass be propitiatory? What sin is it atoning for?

Propitiatory does not mean it's a new sacrifice every week on every parish on every rite.
It's many people partaking in a single Atonement. That of the Cross.

The flesh that we consume in the Eucharist is the exact same flesh that made up Christ's body when he walked this earth.

Ok, we've zeroed in on what I asked in my OP. You say it is the same sacrifice but this is exactly the issue raised up in Hebrews 10:1-3. According to Hebrews 1-3 the issues with the OT sacrifices was that they needed to be repeated. If were efficient then you would only have to do it once and the effects of it would last a life time or eternity. But rather you need to continuously partake of the sacrifices do the the faulty nature of the sacrifice and the sinful nature of man. Now, you might say mass is different because it is the same sacrifice but the issue still stands. You need to repeatedly take part in the sacrifice of the cross because it does not perfect you. If it was truly perfect the most amount of times you would have to take part in mass would be once to announce your entrance to the church. But the fact that you have to do it repeatedly shows that the sacrifice of Christ was faulty and due to the sinful nature of man you have to repeatedly take part in the sacrifice bringing the remembrance of sins.

The only real difference between the mass and the OT sacrifices is that Christ's sacrifice is recyclable unlike the others.

I hope this has cleared up my issue.

Well, I don't think I can agree. What I believe that passage of Hebrews is saying, is that the sacrifices proscribed by the Law were really of no effect, because following the Law, by itself, is similarly of no effect. The whole purpose of the Law - as stated in Galatians - was to lead us to faith, that is, the faith in Christ. That's all the law was meant to do. The sacrifices under the law never had the power to fully remit our sins. The fundamental difference with Christ's sacrifice is that it *does* remit our sins, *through our participation in it.* The old sacrifices kept Israel constantly mindful of their sinfulness, and their need to seek repentence, but "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." Christ's sacrifice is unique, in that it is the only one that is effectual.

I'll have to think about it. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions.
God bless

No, it just means this world does not shine the Glory of God in its fullest. We're faulty as of now because of Sin clouding us, not that the Sacrifice is.
In the afterlife there is no Sin. Now there is, so we prepare for the afterlife.

"Take this and eat, for this is my body given up for you."…
Sounds like a representation.

Maybe this will help; time exists far differently for God than for man. If he is All-in-all and eternal, or omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it could be understood that God exists Now, Then, and Later all at once, where as we only exist now. To participate in the Liturgy is not to "repeat" or "represent" the sacrifice, but to literally and actually participate in it at that very moment. It is the final, continuous sacrifice. It is one of the divine mysteries whose function (as in how it works) we will never fully understand. This idea that we are repeating it is wrong; we are engaging in it at this very moment. This is also why the Old Calendarists split; it is seen as important to undertake this meeting on the same day as God. this is erroneous as God exists across all, and to take part in Him is to take part in every second, if that makes sense

To expound upon this; we have to continuously engage in it because we exist only Now. Our goal is reconciliation, and the only way is through Christ. In a way, it could be understood that what we do now is only preparation for death. We come to know God through our struggles, and we must remind ourselves through Christ; thus we engage with the Eucharist many times despite it being the only one time we need. We fail and separate from God; to participate in the Eucharist once is to do it everytime, and to do it everytime is to do it once. Where the sacrifice comes into fullest effect is at death, where we must face God and be judged. I'm unsure if this is helpful or just confusing. Ultimately, with Orthodoxy I find the mystery and paradox of Truth, but to an unreceptive heart it comes off as meaningless trite. Part of why having Faith and a relationship of Love is far more important than any "theological" pondering.

Yes, but is it a sacrifice or spiritual nourishment? I see it as spiritual nourishment.

If you look above I kinda did say I'm aware of what you believe. From what I've heard the mass is like a time machine and every time you go mass it's like taking a time machine back to the 1st century and you are approaching the mass for the first time to have its benefits re-applied to you. That's the issue I have with it. That the mass is a sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was once and for all and is being applied to us for all time. The mass disrupts this by saying that Christ's atonement only works for as long as your sinless then you have to approach it again next week. It makes Christs sacrifice another OT sacrifice but a recyclable one where it's not a different lamb but the same one but the functions are still the same.

I'm worried more ab about the sacrificial aspect.

Right, except sacrifice occurs in this world, and time exists in this world, which means sacrifice is subject to the law of time. Jesus did not die this sunday and He will not die this coming sunday; He died on just one day in one week in one month in one year. This fact has nothing to do with His divine nature. His eternal being was not nailed to the cross.
Furthermore, the problem to the author of Hebrews is not the temporality of the sacrifice, but its repetitiveness, of returning to it, since, he argues, this would not happen if it perfectly sanctified those who drew near.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. It's deceitful for you to pretend that is the doctrine. The reason you return to the sacrifice is not because you are a temporal creature, but because you are a sinful one. You go back to the altar because you have need of it again, because you have fallen out of favor again since the offering has failed you.
I hate it when people are this disingenuous and make profoundly theological statements that have very clear and specific theological meanings and pretend they're not actually saying anything to deflect criticism away from their self-consciously weak and absurd positions.

I think there is a miscommunication. It is not that we need more than one, but that we must endeavor to become closer to God. To do this, we must partake in His glory, to become close. Do you see the difference? We are not just partaking of the sacrifice for our sin and failing, but joining with Him altogether. It is the path to becoming Christ-like. It's not just the removal of erasure, but the redefining and uplifting. not to be dismissive, but this is a Divine Mystery. It's not fully understandable, and any perspective or analogy I could give would be flawed or wrong, if only because I'm foolish. WE DO NOT EXIST LIKE GOD. He offers us to become like Him, and partaking in this is the way to do it.

Except the Liturgy occurs in all time as does God. We partake in the once and only. But if you are truly more knowledgeable of the Orthodox Liturgy, then I say with genuine sincerity correct me and point to me where it has been said. I am likely wrong, but this seems to be the answer; oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/the-divine-liturgy

This isn't really how we view the Eucharist, though. It's not like showing up to collect your weekly paycheck. Consuming the Eucharist enacts a physical change within us. This has to do with how we view sin. Sin is not merely the violation of a rule, but an actual corruption of our own human nature. When we sin, our whole person is actually, physically, spiritually damaged. The Eucharist helps to repair this damage. We physically consume it - Christ's flesh physically becomes part of our flesh. Just as in Baptism, our body is spiritually joined to His Body, so in Communion, our body is physically joined to His Body.

The problem with considering the Eucharist to be merely symbolic, or truly the Body of Christ but not salvific, is that it denies that sin has any impact us at all. When we sin - for it is nearly (but not necessarily) inevitable that after becoming Christians we will sin - all of our personhood is affected. Spiritually, you are correct, the Crucifixion opened up to us the path of remission of sins once and for all by confessing them. But we are not only spirit, but body as well. Our bodies inhabit a physical space and time, a physicality that requires a physical process to heal, just as the spirit requires a spiritual process to heal. Holy Communion is that physical process. Your perspective denies the physicality of our nature. To deny that the physical participation in Communion is a part of the remission of sins, is to deny that our bodies have an ultimate meaning at all. Essentially, it becomes a sort of Gnosticism, where the body is irrelevant, and only the Spirit matters.

Come to think of it, the pensive service is definitely Vespers, not Liturgy.

The real pensive service is the Great Canon.

Couldn't it be understood that Vespers is just an abridged Great Canon? After all it read leading up to Pascha.

Attached: IMG_3037.PNG (500x301, 12.68K)

bumping this