What is the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christianity?

[Shiranui117]

Still a lot of 'dance' to learn.

And I can't take communion because I'm not Orthodox...

At least that is what the Coptic Fathers I spoke with told me... is that consistent?

Yes, that is correct, and standard policy among all Orthodox churches, Oriental and Eastern alike. This is not meant to make you feel left out (you can count on Orthodox bringing blessed bread to you which you can feel free to take and eat) but the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church takes on a different significance than among the Anglicans or low-church Protestants.

For us, Holy Communion/the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. By taking the Eucharist, one assents to all Orthodox doctrine, belief and practice, and unites themselves to the Church. Because the Eucharist is at the center of the life of the Church, only those who are steeped in the life of the Church and been made a formal part of it are able to partake of it. This idea reaches clear back to St. Ignatius of Antioch, the student of St. John the Apostle.

 

[SageTree]

Yes, that is correct, and standard policy among all Orthodox churches, Oriental and Eastern alike. This is not meant to make you feel left out (you can count on Orthodox bringing blessed bread to you which you can feel free to take and eat) but the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church takes on a different significance than among the Anglicans or low-church Protestants.

For us, Holy Communion/the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. By taking the Eucharist, one assents to all Orthodox doctrine, belief and practice, and unites themselves to the Church. Because the Eucharist is at the center of the life of the Church, only those who are steeped in the life of the Church and been made a formal part of it are able to partake of it. This idea reaches clear back to St. Ignatius of Antioch, the student of St. John the Apostle.

The Father I talked to said 'it wasn't seen as transubstantiation, like the Roman Catholics would outline'... and said it wasn't 'Just remembrance like the Protestants', rather said 'it wasn't literal, but it was much MUCH more than remembrance... that the Spirit was with Us in the Eucharist.' Does that in any way match your beliefs?

In your opinion does is High Anglicanism also included in 'Anglican'?

Could you compare-contrast it a bit... also your links have been great to read.

So many thanks to you and Πολυπέρχων sharing with me.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Shiranui117]

The Father I talked to said 'it wasn't seen as transubstantiation, like the Roman Catholics would outline'... and said it wasn't 'Just remembrance like the Protestants', rather said 'it wasn't literal, but it was much MUCH more than remembrance... that the Spirit was with Us in the Eucharist.' Does that in any way match your beliefs?

It most definitely is the true Body and Blood of Christ; when distributing the Eucharist, the priest/deacon says "The servant/handmaid of God X receives the most precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins and for life everlasting. Amen."

We as Orthodox do not teach transubstantiation, though some may believe it privately. Rather, we do not attempt to define a Divine Mystery--and thus risk puting it into a neat and tidy box, limiting it. We simply acknowledge that, somehow, some way, Christ is truly and mystically present in the Eucharist. We have no doctrine about how it happens, other than the fact that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and consecrates it, and the fact that we truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

In your opinion does is High Anglicanism also included in 'Anglican'?

IMO, High Anglicanism is liturgically and spiritually different than normal Anglicanism, but they are both within the same Anglican Church. However, I don't think I quite understand exactly what you're asking here?

Could you compare-contrast it a bit... also your links have been great to read.

I'm sorry, what are you asking me to compare/contrast? I'm just a wee bit mixed up ATM ._.

 

[SageTree]

It most definitely is the true Body and Blood of Christ.....
We as Orthodox do not teach transubstantiation......

I understand that 'it is'....
but wonder how that is then not the exact definition of transubstantiation?

< Not picking on you... just genuine question. Thank you.)

IMO, High Anglicanism is liturgically and spiritually different than normal Anglicanism, but they are both within the same Anglican Church. However, I don't think I quite understand exactly what you're asking here?

I'm asking because you separated Anglicanism from Low Protestantism....
So I wondered what you said 'Anglican' what you meant exactly

IE. High vs Low and if you felt that 'high' was in some way different.

You explained it enough I feel unless you'd like to say more,
or if you could provide some insights into High Anglicanism.

I'm sorry, what are you asking me to compare/contrast? I'm just a wee bit mixed up ATM ._.

Here I was asking if you could compare and contrast High Anglicism with Orthodox theology.

:namaste
SageTree


(PS. Really enjoy speaking with you)

 

[Shiranui117]

I understand that 'it is'....
but wonder how that is then not the exact definition of transubstantiation?

< Not picking on you... just genuine question. Thank you.)

OH, now I gotcha. Transubstantiation is all about the process by which the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. It's not the same as the doctrine of the Real Presence. It's simply a way to describe "how" you go from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ. It runs from a few philosophical assumptions connected with Aristotle, IIRC.

-First off, everything has an "essence," that which makes something what it is. You should remember this from explanations of the Trinity
-Second off, you have something called the "accidents," or the physical, outward appearance of a given object; how it sounds, tastes, feels like, smells, looks.

Now, the process of Transubstantiation works as follows:

-You have the bread and wine that look like bread and wine, and have the essence of bread and wine.
-The consecration happens.
-After the consecration, the bread and wine still retain their "accidents," or outward appearance.
-However, the essence is no longer that of bread and wine, but of the Body and Blood of Christ. Outwardly bread and wine, but essentially the Body and Blood of Christ.

^That entire thing is not the same as the Real Presence of Christ in/as the Eucharist. Rather, it is an explanation of how it changes from bread and wine, to Body and Blood of Christ.

I'm asking because you separated Anglicanism from Low Protestantism....
So I wondered what you said 'Anglican' what you meant exactly

Oh, now I know what you're getting at. I separated it, because the Anglicans feel that they're sort of a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism, and not all Anglicans are low-church, and thus should not be grouped in with the rest of the low-churchers.

IE. High vs Low and if you felt that 'high' was in some way different.

High Church Anglicanism, from my scant knowledge, has a more liturgical spiritual life. It's much more traditional in terms of prayers, services and doctrines. I think they might believe in the Real Presence... You can probably speak to this a lot better than I can.

Here I was asking if you could compare and contrast High Anglicism with Orthodox theology.

Like I said, I don't know much, and I'm by no means familiar with much of Anglican theology. However, as already discussed elsewhere in this DIR, the Anglicans seem to share the Orthodox view in how we are saved and what Christ does for us through His death and Resurrection.

(PS. Really enjoy speaking with you)

Likewise

 

[SageTree]

Read all this and will say more again before long.
Am heading out for a walk.
Nice thoughts and feelings to step out with in my heart and on my mind.

:namaste

 

[Shiranui117]

Read all this and will say more again before long.

Very well, whenever you get around to it. Be well!