Council O' Trent And Number O' Sacraments

[Aloysius]

but we can't ask "what happened during that time period"??? I'm not trying to pinpoint it as if it's the only things Christ ever did or does on Earth, but seriously? You think that the Eastern position suggests that we should never even discuss what occurred during the historical life of Jesus of Nazareth between His birth and His ascension? obviously He is not disconnected from the Church throughout History, but there is indeed a way to discuss what occurred during that specific time period, is there not?

you relegate things time and time again to only the First Millenium of the Church... but you can't pinpoint specific things within only the 33 years of the earthly life of Christ?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858952' date='May 5 2009, 06:36 PM']but we can't ask "what happened during that time period"??? I'm not trying to pinpoint it as if it's the only things Christ ever did or does on Earth, but seriously? You think that the Eastern position suggests that we should never even discuss what occurred during the historical life of Jesus of Nazareth between His birth and His ascension? obviously He is not disconnected from the Church throughout History, but there is indeed a way to discuss what occurred during that specific time period, is there not?

you relegate things time and time again to only the First Millenium of the Church... but you can't pinpoint specific things within only the 33 years of the earthly life of Christ?[/quote]
We can talk about any number of time periods, but doing so in relation to the institution of the holy mysteries is -- to me -- Protestant, and as far as Protestantism is concerned . . . been there, done that.

[Aloysius]

so it's somehow protestant to talk about the sacraments which Christ administered between His birth and ascension/Pentecost... good to know. sheesh.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1858953' date='May 5 2009, 08:40 PM']We can talk about any number of time periods, but doing so in relation to the institution of the holy mysteries is -- to me -- Protestant, and as far as Protestantism is concerned . . . been there, done that.[/quote]

Because it's so Protestant to say the Eucharist was actually instituted at the Last Supper

Edited May 6, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858958' date='May 5 2009, 06:44 PM']Because it's so Protestant to say the Eucharist was actually instituted at the Last Supper [/quote]
Yes, to me it is. The Fathers never spoke of the institution of the "sacraments" in that fashion, nor did they limit the mysteries to seven in number. In fact, as Vladika Lazar said in one of his YouTube talks, St. John Chrysostom identified more than 24 rites / rituals as mysteries, and his list was not exhaustive.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858957' date='May 5 2009, 06:43 PM']so it's somehow protestant to talk about the sacraments which Christ administered between His birth and ascension/Pentecost... good to know. sheesh.[/quote]
Al,

It is, because it is a part of the polemic that developed in order to justify Western Catholic practice in disputes with Protestants. Protestantism is irrelevant to me, and reducing the faith to concepts that can be used in order to argue with Protestants has no real interest for me.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1858959' date='May 5 2009, 08:46 PM']Yes, to me it is. The Fathers never spoke of the institution of the "sacraments" in that fashion, nor did they limit the mysteries to seven in number. In fact, as Vladika Lazar said in one of his YouTube talks, St. John Chrysostom identified more than 24 rites / rituals as mysteries, and his list was not exhaustive.[/quote]


It seems nonsensical that you wouldn't say Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper when you so adamantly refuse to say "Words of Consecration" but instead always say "Words of [b]Institution[/b]"

Edited May 6, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Aloysius]

But is not relations between the Roman and Eastern Churches relevant to you? Could you not accept a Roman Church which spoke about 7 sacraments administered to the faithful in some way by Christ during His 33 years but admitted of any number of 'mysteries'/'sacraments'... I'm not trying to justify the Faith to Protestants here, I'm trying to justify Romans following a list of 7 for themselves at least... I'm trying to see if that list can't have some special significance.

And anyway, Florence lists the 7 Sacraments as well. The list was not invented to combat Protestantism, it was the Roman Tradition already.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858968' date='May 5 2009, 06:51 PM']It seems nonsensical that you wouldn't say Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper when you so adamantly refuse to say "Words of Consecration" but instead always say "Words of [b]Institution[/b]"[/quote]
I simply believe that the holy mysteries are rendered life creating by the [i]epiklesis[/i].

[Resurrexi]

That doesn't answer why you refer to the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper the "Words of Instittion".

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858972' date='May 5 2009, 06:52 PM']And anyway, Florence lists the 7 Sacraments as well. The list was not invented to combat Protestantism, it was the Roman Tradition already.[/quote]
Al,

I think if you re-read my earlier posts you will see that I attribute the theological reductionism in connection with the holy mysteries first to the medieval Scholastic philosophers. Their rationalist system later is used against the Protestant heretics.

God grant you many years,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858980' date='May 5 2009, 06:57 PM']That doesn't answer why you refer to the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper the "Words of Instittion".[/quote]
I think that you will look in vain for the use of the "words of institution" among the Fathers of the first millennium. That notion gains popularity only after the rise of Scholasticism, and then the term is used by many Eastern authors simply to help in refuting the Western Church's position.

[Resurrexi]

That's simply what [b]you[/b], Apotheoun, kept calling them when I would refer to the "Words of Consecration"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858992' date='May 5 2009, 07:02 PM']That's simply what [b]you[/b], Apotheoun, kept calling them when I would refer to the "Words of Consecration"[/quote]
You got me . . . and now you know that I called them that to irritate you in particular.

I believe, as I have said before, that the whole Eucharistic anaphora is consecratory, but if I had to choose a precise moment for the change of the elements it would be at the epiklesis.

[Resurrexi]

I believe that the Words of Consecration alone, and no other part of the Anaphora is consecratory. To back up this belief I have the testimony of several Ecumenical Councils.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Resurrexi