I chose Ambrose as my confirmation name, because he was the saint that I felt the most profound connection with. He is the saint that I most wish that I could be like and that I believe this world needs most.
He set the tone for the Western Medieval relationship between Church and state, which I think was the best possible: an independent hierarchical Church set above, in a moral and spiritual way, the temporal kingdoms, principalities, and even the emperor. In our world the state reigns supreme and the Church is more like a quaint hobbyist organization, allowed by the state to exist so long as it doesn't step out of line with the edicts of the state. And this more or less explains why the world has gone crazy in so many ways.
People who think the Mass is a re-sacrificing of Christ don't understand the nature of the Jewish Passover ritual and feast, which is the Old Testament type that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross fulfilled and completed once and for all.
In ancient Judea the Passover was celebrated by sacrificing the lamb in the afternoon and then later, after the sun set, eating the lamb with unleavened bread. Most Protestants only get it half right. They properly venerate Christ's sacrifice, which is great, but they have forgotten about the part where you have to eat the Lamb.
The Sacrifice on Calvary happened once and for all, but we must complete the ritual of the Passover by partaking in the feast of the Pascal Lamb. God makes this possible for us by way of transubstantiation. In the Mass, Christ's sacrifice is made present for us, not repeated, in a miraculous way so that we may consume the Lamb and be counted among God's people just as those ancient Israelites did during the first Passover.
"And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month: and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it." Exodus 12:6-7
In the original Passover, God makes it clear we must eat the lamb. This explains why Jesus, the Lamb of God, our Pasch, tells His followers (and us) that we must "eat His flesh and drink His blood" or else "[we] shall not have life in [us]" (John 6:54)
I truly hope and pray that Christ forgives Protestants for not understanding this. I didn't for most of my life.
ATL, as mentioned, I don't understand this fight very well, but I think what a protestant would reply to your post (and, again, I am not advocating this...) is in the "once and for all" part. The OT sacrifice was not once and for all - yes, eaten, but repeated. Jesus on the cross was once and for all - well, at least "all" who are predestined, elect, etc. :-)
So, a re-sacrifice of Christ. Again, not to debate, just offering my understanding - ignorant as it might be.
I have come as far as this, something I heard Jonathan Pageau say that an Orthodox priest told him: Roman Catholics believe it's real, Protestants believe it's a symbol: we believe it is real because it is a symbol.
The Eucharist is more meaningful (can use the word "real"?) to me when I participate in my Orthodox Church than when I do in my Protestant Church. I know some of the reasons why this is so, but not all of the reasons. And, maybe, some of the reasons that I do not know are meant to remain a mystery to me, at least for now.
I agree. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was the perfection and fulfillment of this imperfect covenantal relationship between man and God, thus it is once and for all (all who choose to believe or who are chosen, etc.). I think a Protestant would have no argument with this. They would only really push back on the eating of the Lamb part (and the liturgical and theological necessities of it). But to Catholics, the eating of the Lamb is critical to fulfilling the requirements of the Covenant. We must not only sacrifice the lamb but eat it too.
Protestants object that Catholics are re-sacrificing Christ in the Mass, but Catholics believe it is a re-presentation, a "making present" of what happened (once and for all) in the past, so that we may all (past, present, future) fulfill the second part of the Covenant and Jesus' commandment in John 6.
I don't know exactly why God requires this sort of sacrifice to be a part of His Covenant. I suspect it is because without sacrifice there can be no real meaning. If there is no real meaning there is no real love. But that may be only part of the story. Further, I think the sacrifice is mostly or totally for our benefit. I don't think God needs it.
I confess I don't often understand exactly what Pageau and other Orthodox mean when they say that symbolism is true. I am working on this though! What I think it means is that true symbolism gives us an image of the real structure of reality that otherwise cannot be understood. We cannot see the descending lines of code underpinning all of reality in real time (Neo-style), so we must form (or be given) symbols to make sense of what we know (or are told) is beyond our senses. But if God is purely symbolic, is He really true? What about other historical events in the Bible that purport to be true? If these are only symbolic, are they really true? I guess I don't really know where Orthodox draw the line between symbolism and concrete historical events.
ATL, your Neo reference points to the example I often use when considering symbolism as real - and if I have mentioned this to you before, apologies. The movie "Matrix" is as "true" as any depiction of the state of our condition in modern society as any historically accurate documentary. Yet, it tells this true story via symbols.
Symbolism: The first eleven chapters of Genesis...I find such value in them outside of worrying about DNA samples or archeological digs. There is significant "truth" in these chapters, the truth God wanted us to understand: He is the Creator of all from nothing, He breathed into man giving man a soul, man is made in His image. Sin can so corrupt the world that the world will be destroyed. If man attempts to build up to reach God, man will fail. Are these symbols or are they historical "facts"? I am not sure I care. I do know that if God attempted to tell me the historically and scientifically accurate way He did things in those first eleven chapters, it would be meaningless to me and I wouldn't understand any of it.
As for God - no, He isn't "merely" a symbol, although there is symbolic significance to the being that is God.
Your comments about the Eucharist...this is why I have grown to value my wider exploration into Christianity. There is so much to learn outside of the bubble in which we are raised, and there is truth to be found (just as there are also errors) in every tradition. Altogether, a richer experience is possible with the exploration.
If that is all that the Orthodox tradition is saying about symbolism then I am 100% onboard. I had a feeling there was a lot of alignment there, but some of the things Pageau says every once in a while make me think I am missing something. I think there is a naturally a lot of overlap between Orthodox and Catholic thinking of scripture: amillennial, partial preterist, importance of typology in scripture (especially regarding St. Mary), love and veneration of tradition along with scripture, etc.
I came from the Episcopal tradition, and it was my wider study of Christianity that brought me to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the need to convert. I converted to Catholicism despite my Protestant upbringing and my libertarian disdain for centralized authority.
"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Chesterton
On that particular subject my mind is effectively closed, because I consider the Catholic argument for the real presence unassailable. But if I see a really good scriptural argument that I haven't seen before or historical evidence of a widespread understanding among the early church that contradicts it, I would be open to reconsider my views.
ATL, I won't claim that what I have described contains all that the Orthodox (or Pageau) see in the idea of symbolism. I guess I am taking what I understand from such thinkers and seeing how, or how far, it might make sense to me.
There may be more to it, or less. But, for now, this much works for me.
Re-sacrificing Christ? Only if one puts God in the same time-sequence box in which His creation exists. “This is the night” is proclaimed every Passover and every Pascha as a reminder that there is sacred time beyond what we know.
Thank you for bringing the "time" issue into my thought here. It is so difficult (impossible) to grasp the reality of God outside of time, and what that means in every way.
I chose Ambrose as my confirmation name, because he was the saint that I felt the most profound connection with. He is the saint that I most wish that I could be like and that I believe this world needs most.
He set the tone for the Western Medieval relationship between Church and state, which I think was the best possible: an independent hierarchical Church set above, in a moral and spiritual way, the temporal kingdoms, principalities, and even the emperor. In our world the state reigns supreme and the Church is more like a quaint hobbyist organization, allowed by the state to exist so long as it doesn't step out of line with the edicts of the state. And this more or less explains why the world has gone crazy in so many ways.
"We have no king but Caesar." This is the large portion of today's church...
"something about re-sacrificing Christ"
People who think the Mass is a re-sacrificing of Christ don't understand the nature of the Jewish Passover ritual and feast, which is the Old Testament type that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross fulfilled and completed once and for all.
In ancient Judea the Passover was celebrated by sacrificing the lamb in the afternoon and then later, after the sun set, eating the lamb with unleavened bread. Most Protestants only get it half right. They properly venerate Christ's sacrifice, which is great, but they have forgotten about the part where you have to eat the Lamb.
The Sacrifice on Calvary happened once and for all, but we must complete the ritual of the Passover by partaking in the feast of the Pascal Lamb. God makes this possible for us by way of transubstantiation. In the Mass, Christ's sacrifice is made present for us, not repeated, in a miraculous way so that we may consume the Lamb and be counted among God's people just as those ancient Israelites did during the first Passover.
"And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month: and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it." Exodus 12:6-7
In the original Passover, God makes it clear we must eat the lamb. This explains why Jesus, the Lamb of God, our Pasch, tells His followers (and us) that we must "eat His flesh and drink His blood" or else "[we] shall not have life in [us]" (John 6:54)
I truly hope and pray that Christ forgives Protestants for not understanding this. I didn't for most of my life.
ATL, as mentioned, I don't understand this fight very well, but I think what a protestant would reply to your post (and, again, I am not advocating this...) is in the "once and for all" part. The OT sacrifice was not once and for all - yes, eaten, but repeated. Jesus on the cross was once and for all - well, at least "all" who are predestined, elect, etc. :-)
So, a re-sacrifice of Christ. Again, not to debate, just offering my understanding - ignorant as it might be.
I have come as far as this, something I heard Jonathan Pageau say that an Orthodox priest told him: Roman Catholics believe it's real, Protestants believe it's a symbol: we believe it is real because it is a symbol.
The Eucharist is more meaningful (can use the word "real"?) to me when I participate in my Orthodox Church than when I do in my Protestant Church. I know some of the reasons why this is so, but not all of the reasons. And, maybe, some of the reasons that I do not know are meant to remain a mystery to me, at least for now.
"OT sacrifice was not once and for all"
I agree. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was the perfection and fulfillment of this imperfect covenantal relationship between man and God, thus it is once and for all (all who choose to believe or who are chosen, etc.). I think a Protestant would have no argument with this. They would only really push back on the eating of the Lamb part (and the liturgical and theological necessities of it). But to Catholics, the eating of the Lamb is critical to fulfilling the requirements of the Covenant. We must not only sacrifice the lamb but eat it too.
Protestants object that Catholics are re-sacrificing Christ in the Mass, but Catholics believe it is a re-presentation, a "making present" of what happened (once and for all) in the past, so that we may all (past, present, future) fulfill the second part of the Covenant and Jesus' commandment in John 6.
I don't know exactly why God requires this sort of sacrifice to be a part of His Covenant. I suspect it is because without sacrifice there can be no real meaning. If there is no real meaning there is no real love. But that may be only part of the story. Further, I think the sacrifice is mostly or totally for our benefit. I don't think God needs it.
I confess I don't often understand exactly what Pageau and other Orthodox mean when they say that symbolism is true. I am working on this though! What I think it means is that true symbolism gives us an image of the real structure of reality that otherwise cannot be understood. We cannot see the descending lines of code underpinning all of reality in real time (Neo-style), so we must form (or be given) symbols to make sense of what we know (or are told) is beyond our senses. But if God is purely symbolic, is He really true? What about other historical events in the Bible that purport to be true? If these are only symbolic, are they really true? I guess I don't really know where Orthodox draw the line between symbolism and concrete historical events.
ATL, your Neo reference points to the example I often use when considering symbolism as real - and if I have mentioned this to you before, apologies. The movie "Matrix" is as "true" as any depiction of the state of our condition in modern society as any historically accurate documentary. Yet, it tells this true story via symbols.
Symbolism: The first eleven chapters of Genesis...I find such value in them outside of worrying about DNA samples or archeological digs. There is significant "truth" in these chapters, the truth God wanted us to understand: He is the Creator of all from nothing, He breathed into man giving man a soul, man is made in His image. Sin can so corrupt the world that the world will be destroyed. If man attempts to build up to reach God, man will fail. Are these symbols or are they historical "facts"? I am not sure I care. I do know that if God attempted to tell me the historically and scientifically accurate way He did things in those first eleven chapters, it would be meaningless to me and I wouldn't understand any of it.
As for God - no, He isn't "merely" a symbol, although there is symbolic significance to the being that is God.
Your comments about the Eucharist...this is why I have grown to value my wider exploration into Christianity. There is so much to learn outside of the bubble in which we are raised, and there is truth to be found (just as there are also errors) in every tradition. Altogether, a richer experience is possible with the exploration.
If that is all that the Orthodox tradition is saying about symbolism then I am 100% onboard. I had a feeling there was a lot of alignment there, but some of the things Pageau says every once in a while make me think I am missing something. I think there is a naturally a lot of overlap between Orthodox and Catholic thinking of scripture: amillennial, partial preterist, importance of typology in scripture (especially regarding St. Mary), love and veneration of tradition along with scripture, etc.
I came from the Episcopal tradition, and it was my wider study of Christianity that brought me to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the need to convert. I converted to Catholicism despite my Protestant upbringing and my libertarian disdain for centralized authority.
"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Chesterton
On that particular subject my mind is effectively closed, because I consider the Catholic argument for the real presence unassailable. But if I see a really good scriptural argument that I haven't seen before or historical evidence of a widespread understanding among the early church that contradicts it, I would be open to reconsider my views.
ATL, I won't claim that what I have described contains all that the Orthodox (or Pageau) see in the idea of symbolism. I guess I am taking what I understand from such thinkers and seeing how, or how far, it might make sense to me.
There may be more to it, or less. But, for now, this much works for me.
As always, thank you for this summary.
Re-sacrificing Christ? Only if one puts God in the same time-sequence box in which His creation exists. “This is the night” is proclaimed every Passover and every Pascha as a reminder that there is sacred time beyond what we know.
Thank you for bringing the "time" issue into my thought here. It is so difficult (impossible) to grasp the reality of God outside of time, and what that means in every way.