OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 08:52:44 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Consubstantiation  (Read 9847 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
surajiype
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Orthodox Church
Posts: 197


« on: September 29, 2009, 06:13:21 AM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

Some articles on the net say that such is the view of some Orthodox churches. 

Could OO and EO members shed some light on this

Suraj
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2009, 08:12:08 AM »

There are no official or statements in the Orthodox church on the exact way the 'change' occurs in the species at the Consecration.
The Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem (XVII century) adopts the same aristotelian concepts of the Latin dogma of transsubstantiation, such as "substance" and "accidents", and also translates "transsubstantiation" as literally as possible with a constructed word, "metaousia". It must be said that the Council of Jerusalem is regarded as authoritative but not infallible in its definitions, i.e. it may contain errors such as imprecise formulas to define dogmas because of an exaggerated Latin influence on the assembly, due to the fact that most bishops and theologians present at the synod had been educated in Western (and thus Catholic) schools and seminaries. Anyway, even in that case, the word 'substance' has more of a 'spiritual/mystical' feeling then its Latin counterpart "substantia". That said, AFAIK, consubstantiation is not an official statement on faith in the Real Presence. What an Orthodox Christian should acknowledge is that we receive bread and wine as true Body and true Blood of Christ, but the manner of this change (called 'metabole') is indeed unknown. This sense of 'mystery' is essential to the Orthodox faith, in fact all sacraments are called 'Mysteries'. I sincerely don't know how consubstantiation could be regarded as an Orthodox doctrine, since Lutheran terminology on this belief implies a mixture of the original species and of the body of Christ to be present in the host/prosphora, which sounds absurd to me but could nevertheless be acceptable for others. It'd better to stay far from theological definitions which are not grounded in the Bible or in Holy Tradition, though.

In Christ,   alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2009, 08:06:48 AM »

Page 63 (pdf 68) of this book has a section on "the nature of the change". Mostly dealing with why we don't accept transubstantiation, but it has some information that may help you.

http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/books/liturgy.pdf
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2009, 09:14:45 AM »

Page 63 (pdf 68) of this book has a section on "the nature of the change". Mostly dealing with why we don't accept transubstantiation, but it has some information that may help you.

http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/books/liturgy.pdf
Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation?  The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Blessings
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2009, 10:09:47 AM »

Quote
Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.
This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2009, 10:27:51 AM »

Dear brother Alexander,

Quote
Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.
This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.
Unless you can give a quote from a Catholic source that states the change is a "physical" change, I would hope you, or any other non-Catholic, would be decent enough to stop imposing interpretations on Catholic doctrine without any substantiation (no pun intended  Wink).  Go to any Catholic apologetics website and ask them if the change is "physical." I guarantee you they will deny it.  They will describe the change as "a miracle," or "sacramental," but never "physical."  Catholics don't claim or teach that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist, but "sacramentally" present.

Blessings
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2009, 10:45:46 AM »

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2009, 11:16:53 AM »

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?
I would love to, brother, for the sake of understanding between Catholics and Orthodox, but, if sister Salpy is reading this, I will wait to see if she will allow such an explanation in this forum.

Blesssings,
Marduk
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,266



« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2009, 04:14:47 PM »

Dear brother Alexander,

Quote
Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.
This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.
Unless you can give a quote from a Catholic source that states the change is a "physical" change, I would hope you, or any other non-Catholic, would be decent enough to stop imposing interpretations on Catholic doctrine without any substantiation (no pun intended  Wink).  Go to any Catholic apologetics website and ask them if the change is "physical." I guarantee you they will deny it.  They will describe the change as "a miracle," or "sacramental," but never "physical."  Catholics don't claim or teach that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist, but "sacramentally" present.

Blessings

I find this bizarre. I was taught as a Catholic that Christ IS physically present in the Eucharist, and when one goes to Eucharistic Adoration, Christ is physically present. In fact, I did get into a discussion about this very subject a number of years ago with Catholics and many backed me up saying it was a physical change. So what do you mean by saying "sacramentally present, but not physically present?" What does "real presence" mean? Why can't Catholics let their "yes mean yes and their no mean no"?

I found this on a Korean Catholic website (by the way, it appears to be a Catholic apologetics site of some sort) There are many other websites that I found that talk of this:
Quote
Fr. Ri says that he does not deny "the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist" but is rejecting that bread and wine turn into real flesh and blood of Christ through the consecration by a priest. To him, Christ is really present in the Eucharist but only in a personal and spiritual way. Is this what the Church teaches about the Eucharist? Is this what Christ said to His disciples? Our Lord said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world … For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John  6: 51, 56). Many of Our Lord’s followers understood this literally and complained among themselves: "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (John 6:60) They left Jesus and no longer accompanied Him (John 6:66). If Our Lord only meant His "flesh"  and His "blood" in a symbolic or spiritual way, He would have called the Jews back, explaining that they misunderstood Him. But He didn’t call them back, and even challenged His twelve apostles to leave, if they could not accept His words: "Do you also want to leave?" (John 6:67) Throughout the 2,000-year history of Church, it has always been the authentic understanding of Our Lord’s words that He meant His physical presence in the Blessed Sacrament by means of His flesh and blood. Also, because His flesh and blood are living flesh and blood, His soul and Divinity necessarily exist together with His flesh and blood. This is how the totality of the Person of Christ exists in the Eucharist. Therefore, this personal presence of Jesus is not merely a spiritual one but is through His physical presence, just as God the Son became physically present in the world through the human nature of the Baby born of the Virgin Mary. Our Lord said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John  6:56). There cannot be a separation between Our Lord’s personal presence and His physical presence in the Eucharist.
http://www.marys-touch.com/truth/deviation.htm

To get back on topic, I am glad the Orthodox do not feel the need to go into such detail. For this reason, Orthodox don't have to have a discussion about "sacramental presence" and "physical presence." We just say "He's present" and leave it at that.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2009, 05:47:29 PM »

Prayer before Communion, from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom:

I believe, Lord, and I confess that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Also I believe that this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood. Therefore I beseech you, have mercy on me and forgive me my offences, voluntary and involuntary, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and count me worthy to partake uncondemned of your most pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life. Amen.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2009, 06:30:58 PM »

Page 63 (pdf 68) of this book has a section on "the nature of the change". Mostly dealing with why we don't accept transubstantiation, but it has some information that may help you.

http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/books/liturgy.pdf
Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation?  The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Blessings
Depends on what you mean by physically. Can you clarify?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2009, 06:32:10 PM »

Prayer before Communion, from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom:

I believe, Lord, and I confess that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Also I believe that this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood. Therefore I beseech you, have mercy on me and forgive me my offences, voluntary and involuntary, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and count me worthy to partake uncondemned of your most pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life. Amen.
Amen
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2009, 07:01:02 PM »

Prayer before Communion, from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom:

I believe, Lord, and I confess that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Also I believe that this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood. Therefore I beseech you, have mercy on me and forgive me my offences, voluntary and involuntary, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and count me worthy to partake uncondemned of your most pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life. Amen.
Amen

Thank you, Papist. All too often one can run around in circles, flinging patristic quotes at each other, yet, where can we find many of the answers easily? From what is read, said and sung in the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,723


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2009, 08:38:22 PM »

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ,   Alex



PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?
I would love to, brother, for the sake of understanding between Catholics and Orthodox, but, if sister Salpy is reading this, I will wait to see if she will allow such an explanation in this forum.

Blesssings,
Marduk



OCnet rules are such that I am going to ask that you explain your Church's beliefs in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion forum.  You can post a link to the explanation.  Or, you can link to an already existing thread on the topic.  I would imagine it exists, although I am not certain.
Logged

Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2009, 03:27:25 AM »

Dear Shlomlokh,

Dear brother Alexander,

Quote
Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.
This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.
Unless you can give a quote from a Catholic source that states the change is a "physical" change, I would hope you, or any other non-Catholic, would be decent enough to stop imposing interpretations on Catholic doctrine without any substantiation (no pun intended  Wink).  Go to any Catholic apologetics website and ask them if the change is "physical." I guarantee you they will deny it.  They will describe the change as "a miracle," or "sacramental," but never "physical."  Catholics don't claim or teach that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist, but "sacramentally" present.

Blessings

I find this bizarre. I was taught as a Catholic that Christ IS physically present in the Eucharist, and when one goes to Eucharistic Adoration, Christ is physically present. In fact, I did get into a discussion about this very subject a number of years ago with Catholics and many backed me up saying it was a physical change. So what do you mean by saying "sacramentally present, but not physically present?" What does "real presence" mean? Why can't Catholics let their "yes mean yes and their no mean no"?

I found this on a Korean Catholic website (by the way, it appears to be a Catholic apologetics site of some sort) There are many other websites that I found that talk of this:
Quote
Fr. Ri says that he does not deny "the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist" but is rejecting that bread and wine turn into real flesh and blood of Christ through the consecration by a priest. To him, Christ is really present in the Eucharist but only in a personal and spiritual way. Is this what the Church teaches about the Eucharist? Is this what Christ said to His disciples? Our Lord said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world … For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John  6: 51, 56). Many of Our Lord’s followers understood this literally and complained among themselves: "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (John 6:60) They left Jesus and no longer accompanied Him (John 6:66). If Our Lord only meant His "flesh"  and His "blood" in a symbolic or spiritual way, He would have called the Jews back, explaining that they misunderstood Him. But He didn’t call them back, and even challenged His twelve apostles to leave, if they could not accept His words: "Do you also want to leave?" (John 6:67) Throughout the 2,000-year history of Church, it has always been the authentic understanding of Our Lord’s words that He meant His physical presence in the Blessed Sacrament by means of His flesh and blood. Also, because His flesh and blood are living flesh and blood, His soul and Divinity necessarily exist together with His flesh and blood. This is how the totality of the Person of Christ exists in the Eucharist. Therefore, this personal presence of Jesus is not merely a spiritual one but is through His physical presence, just as God the Son became physically present in the world through the human nature of the Baby born of the Virgin Mary. Our Lord said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John  6:56). There cannot be a separation between Our Lord’s personal presence and His physical presence in the Eucharist.
http://www.marys-touch.com/truth/deviation.htm

To get back on topic, I am glad the Orthodox do not feel the need to go into such detail. For this reason, Orthodox don't have to have a discussion about "sacramental presence" and "physical presence." We just say "He's present" and leave it at that.
It's good that you feel it's that simple.  In fact, I don't see that there is even any debate about the matter between Orthodox and Catholics on the matter.

The reason we need to explain it is in order to meet the objections of those who do not have the apostolic Faith.  How indeed would the Orthodox meet the objections of Protestants who claim:
1) "Christ is only spiritually present."

2) Catholics and Orthodox are practicing cannibalism in their Eucharist.

Ponder your responses, and I think you will discover:
1) It is not as simple as simply claiming "Christ is present";

2) the necessity of being able to explain the matter in a logical and coherent manner;

3) just how similar, if not actually identical, the Catholic and Orthodox teachings are.

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2009, 03:30:25 AM »

Page 63 (pdf 68) of this book has a section on "the nature of the change". Mostly dealing with why we don't accept transubstantiation, but it has some information that may help you.

http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/books/liturgy.pdf
Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation?  The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ. 
Depends on what you mean by physically. Can you clarify?
Indeed, brother Papist.  Without actually explaining the matter (given the Forum rules), that is actually the whole point of the matter.

Blessings
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2009, 08:04:40 AM »

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?
I would love to, brother, for the sake of understanding between Catholics and Orthodox, but, if sister Salpy is reading this, I will wait to see if she will allow such an explanation in this forum.

Blesssings,
Marduk


I've only been around for a little while but... Salpy's a girl!? Haha. For some reason I thought Salpy was a dude all this time- I have no idea why.  Smiley
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2009, 11:27:31 AM »

How indeed would the Orthodox meet the objections of Protestants who claim:
1) "Christ is only spiritually present."

See above "this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood." It's a plain statement, the simplest grammar in any language I'm aware of: x is y. Period.

Quote
2) Catholics and Orthodox are practicing cannibalism in their Eucharist.

My response would be 'so?'. If it *is* the Body and Blood of Christ, then it can only be so through the direct action of the Holy Spirit. If Christ commanded it and the Holy Spirit chooses to give it to us, who are you (i.e., generic Protestant) to criticize?

Quote
Ponder your responses, and I think you will discover:
1) It is not as simple as simply claiming "Christ is present";

True, for Orthodox it's simpler. It's not even a matter of 'Christ is present', it's that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Quote
2) the necessity of being able to explain the matter in a logical and coherent manner;

I think this actually gets at the crux of the difference between Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) and RC here. The Eucharist is a transcendent Mystery (in the original sense of that term). We don't see a 'necessity' to explain it; like 1=1 in Math, 'it is the body and blood of Christ' is an axiomatic statement.

That said, Orthodoxy has not, generally, had a problem with Transubstantion. We don't embrace it, as the Roman Church does, simply because it is based on Thomist/Scholastic philosophical categories that we do not necessarily accept. Or to put it another way, *if* you are going to assume a Thomist philosophy, then Transubstantion is a perfectly valid explanation of the Eucharist. And therefore, an Orthodox can define our belief as 'Transubstantion' (as, for example, the EI Council of Jerusalem). It's just not required to define it that way, since the underlying philosophy/categories/vocabulary is not required (or even generally accepted)

Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2009, 12:03:20 PM »

Page 63 (pdf 68) of this book has a section on "the nature of the change". Mostly dealing with why we don't accept transubstantiation, but it has some information that may help you.

http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/books/liturgy.pdf
Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation?  The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ. 
Depends on what you mean by physically. Can you clarify?
Indeed, brother Papist.  Without actually explaining the matter (given the Forum rules), that is actually the whole point of the matter.

Blessings
Can you start a thread in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion area?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2009, 10:16:20 PM »

The MOSC claims that the Orthodox position is consubstantiation or "in, with, and under":

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2009, 05:25:18 AM »

The MOSC claims that the Orthodox position is consubstantiation or "in, with, and under":

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361
The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2009, 05:09:34 PM »

The MOSC claims that the Orthodox position is consubstantiation or "in, with, and under":

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361
The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ,   Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2009, 08:29:54 AM »

The MOSC claims that the Orthodox position is consubstantiation or "in, with, and under":

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361
The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ,   Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.
This is true if you can find any quotes from the Fathers or from the Divine Liturgy affirming that bread and wine continue to exist within the Holy Species. If you can provide any, I'll be happy to read them.
Let st. Cyril of Jerusalem answer for me:
Quote
"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2009, 11:37:22 AM »


This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ,    Alex
UH OH. This thread is about to get real fun.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 11:37:42 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2009, 03:24:01 PM »


This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ,    Alex
UH OH. This thread is about to get real fun.  Cheesy

Don't misunderstand me. I don't like Scholasticism. Nevertheless, in the case of transubstantiation the words of st. Cyril precede those of Thomas Aquinas by some 1000 years: my defence isn't for Orthodoxy or for Catholicism, but for Truth.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2009, 03:28:33 PM »


This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ,    Alex
UH OH. This thread is about to get real fun.  Cheesy

Don't misunderstand me. I don't like Scholasticism. Nevertheless, in the case of transubstantiation the words of st. Cyril precede those of Thomas Aquinas by some 1000 years: my defence isn't for Orthodoxy or for Catholicism, but for Truth.

In Christ,   Alex
I understand. I'm just teasing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2009, 04:38:47 PM »

The MOSC claims that the Orthodox position is consubstantiation or "in, with, and under":

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361
The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ,   Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.
This is true if you can find any quotes from the Fathers or from the Divine Liturgy affirming that bread and wine continue to exist within the Holy Species. If you can provide any, I'll be happy to read them.
Let st. Cyril of Jerusalem answer for me:
Quote
"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ,    Alex

Doesn't it say somewhere in the fathers though that he who partakes without belief only received bread and wine, not the Body and Blood? i wish I could remember the source.

I know we can't agree with consubstantation. Christ said "This is my Body", not "My Body is in here". We believe that it literally is the Body and Blood when we partake. But I don't know about all the details of transubstantiation either, that makes it a physical change (i.e. a change of the substance). It is literally the Body and Blood of Christ that we're partaking of. But in what sense? Has it been physically changed (substance changed) and yet the physical appearance (accidents) remain unchanged as transubstantiation teaches? I do not know one way or the other, only that it is literally the Body and Blood, but I do not know the nature of the change, only that it mysteriously becomes the Body and Blood.
Logged
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2009, 04:57:23 PM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2009, 05:03:57 PM »

The MOSC claims that the Orthodox position is consubstantiation or "in, with, and under":

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361
The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ,   Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.
This is true if you can find any quotes from the Fathers or from the Divine Liturgy affirming that bread and wine continue to exist within the Holy Species. If you can provide any, I'll be happy to read them.
Let st. Cyril of Jerusalem answer for me:
Quote
"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ,    Alex

Doesn't it say somewhere in the fathers though that he who partakes without belief only received bread and wine, not the Body and Blood? i wish I could remember the source.

I know we can't agree with consubstantation. Christ said "This is my Body", not "My Body is in here". We believe that it literally is the Body and Blood when we partake. But I don't know about all the details of transubstantiation either, that makes it a physical change (i.e. a change of the substance). It is literally the Body and Blood of Christ that we're partaking of. But in what sense? Has it been physically changed (substance changed) and yet the physical appearance (accidents) remain unchanged as transubstantiation teaches? I do not know one way or the other, only that it is literally the Body and Blood, but I do not know the nature of the change, only that it mysteriously becomes the Body and Blood.

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine. Also it might be that, in order for Christ's body and blood to be preserved from sacrilege, the effects of consecration and transubstantiation can reverse. Sincerely, I wouldn't get too much interest in the HOW. I only know we can't say the prosphora is still bread if not in appearance, as st. Cyril said; the manner of this change, and the character of His permanence in the holy gifts, is a fruit of pure speculation even the greatest theologians didn't study in depth, both in the Western and Eastern traditions, with good results. My previous consideration meant to say that the word "consubstantiation" is even more dangerous: it means that Christ's body and blood are "mixed" within bread and wine, in a certain sense, and i don't think we have any proof of this neither by Tradition nor by Liturgy, while at least one father spoke in favour of transubstantiation (in its general lines... of course he couldn't use the specific Aristotelian terminologies of Scholasticism!). In Greek theology, the best word remains transmutation, though.

In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2009, 05:11:11 PM »

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,255


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2009, 05:12:52 PM »

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.

Well could be like the difference in the way the saved and the damned experience God, but it is still God nonetheless?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2009, 05:17:25 PM »

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.

Well could be like the difference in the way the saved and the damned experience God, but it is still God nonetheless?

That's my understanding.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2009, 05:50:48 PM »

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.

Well could be like the difference in the way the saved and the damned experience God, but it is still God nonetheless?

That's my understanding.
That's mine too. I was just suggesting with position #2. My first position is that bread and wine are no more and that Christ's body and blood have no positive effects on the soul of the communicando, and that the same fact of eating unworthily the holy eucharist is a sacrilege detrimental to one's soul. This, I think, is what anyone would easily accept.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2009, 11:24:14 PM »


This is true if you can find any quotes from the Fathers or from the Divine Liturgy affirming that bread and wine continue to exist within the Holy Species.

I'm not saying that it is the Tradition of the Church. I simply said that it seemed more reasonable to me.


Let st. Cyril of Jerusalem answer for me:
Quote
"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

If the translation is accurate, yes. I am somewhat skeptical if it is. But assuming it is, I don't see what the big deal is. That just means Cyril of Jersualem believed in a transubstantiation akin to what the Scholastics defined. So what? Transubstantiation is just as much a tolerated opinion as any other explanation of the Real Presence.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2009, 11:27:01 PM »


I know we can't agree with consubstantation. Christ said "This is my Body", not "My Body is in here". We believe that it literally is the Body and Blood when we partake.

Huh? Consubstantiation also involves the partaking of the literal Body and Blood of Christ.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2009, 11:28:35 PM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2009, 11:35:37 PM »


A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

Oh jimminy. If we're not allowed to interpret receiving Body and Blood as "as if" likewise we cannot do that with receiving bread and wine. You're introducing a double standard.


Also it might be that, in order for Christ's body and blood to be preserved from sacrilege, the effects of consecration and transubstantiation can reverse.

If the Body and Blood don't discontinue after their needed use in the Mass, then why would they do so with sacrilege?


My previous consideration meant to say that the word "consubstantiation" is even more dangerous: it means that Christ's body and blood are "mixed" within bread and wine,

They are no more mixed than the humanity and divinity of Christ are mixed even in the hypostatic union (which they are not).

I'm not saying that it is a hypostatic union, just that if a mixture is not affected even in the hypostatic union where the humanity and divinity indwell each other (not that indwelling is the extent of the union), then there is no reason to suggest that the indwelling of these elements in the Eucharist involves a mixture.


 in a certain sense, and i don't think we have any proof of this neither by Tradition nor by Liturgy, while at least one father spoke in favour of transubstantiation (in its general lines... of course he couldn't use the specific Aristotelian terminologies of Scholasticism!). In Greek theology, the best word remains transmutation, though.

What is meant by transmutation?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2009, 11:41:03 PM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2009, 11:44:22 PM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2009, 11:47:09 PM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

They are not viewed with much authority by who? You can't possibly claim to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2009, 11:52:16 PM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

They are not viewed with much authority by who? You can't possibly claim to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.

No, I was asking what you meant when you said that I'm "not even Orthodox"?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2009, 12:01:34 AM »

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation. 

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

They are not viewed with much authority by who? You can't possibly claim to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.

No, I was asking what you meant when you said that I'm "not even Orthodox"?

According to your member profile, you are not Orthodox. It seems improper that you should point out what Orthodox find authoritative and what they do not.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2009, 12:14:58 AM »

Quote
According to your member profile, you are not Orthodox. It seems improper that you should point out what Orthodox find authoritative and what they do not.

Oh, I don't know about that. Let's suppose that I said the following: "15th century Russian penitential literature isn't authoritative today". Now that's a claim that I've made. Whether it's accurate or not doesn't depend on whether I'm Orthodox. You can ask me to give some evidence to back up my claim. Or you can go back and see what 15th century Russian penitential literature said, and prove or disprove my claim yourself. But there's no need to disregard the claim just because the source isn't Orthodox. Now, if the source person has a history of lying, or making up things out of thin air with no proof, I could understand some skepticism. But otherwise, I would ask that you not be too harsh with we non-Orthodox.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,723


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #43 on: November 11, 2009, 12:19:58 AM »


According to your member profile, you are not Orthodox. It seems improper that you should point out what Orthodox find authoritative and what they do not.

Watch it, Samkin.   Smiley


Actually, the Orthodox answer, as given by my own Church, is: "It's a mystery."  Among the OO's, we know it is somehow the body and blood of Christ, and don't go elaborating any further.  At least that's how it is in the Armenian Church.

Deusveritasest from what I understand, is currently an EO who is looking into the OO Church.  If you want to say that the EO's are not Orthodox, you can do that, but it would be nice if you did it in the private forum.
Logged

witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2009, 12:52:56 AM »

Just to point out in Samkim's defense--while many of us are aware of deusveritas' path, if you simply go by his current profile which samkim pointed too, it says that he is an 'inquirer'. There's no reference to his past EO membership; and he's explicitly not OO (as in a communicating member of a church) yet.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Tags: communion 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 72 queries.