Author Topic: Transubstantiation  (Read 890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aidan9

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Faith: Baha'i
  • Jurisdiction: Britai and Ireland
Transubstantiation
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:08:22 PM »
Does the Orthodox faith teach transubstantiation ?

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,200
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2016, 06:24:25 PM »
It is one of several theories on the question among Orthodox.

Orthodoxy goes by the Church fathers and there is no ecumenical council on the question. The fathers have opposing opinions, but Orthodox don't make this a big debate between ourselves like Protestants and Catholics have, which could easily lead to confusion on the part of many Protestants who try to rigidly define the mysteries as technical dogmas.

Let me give an example. Rather curious for me is that a strict reading of the Anglican (NOT Orthodox) Articles of religion seems to say that Jesus' body is given and taken in the Eucharist ritual, and also claim that the faithful eat it but the unworthy don't. And it says: "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ" . This could suggest that the real presence is in the bread, and that it's not just a symbol, since after all, even the unworthy take the symbol. One of the authors of the Anglican Articles, Bp. Guest, says he inserted the word "given" to prove the real presence in the bread.

But how does it happen that the unworthy don't take Jesus' body according to Anglicans? One Anglican explanation I read and also was told is that Jesus secretly removes himself from the bread without the unworthy knowing it. In this Anglican scheme, the unworthy is told by Jesus that he is in the bread, but then Jesus basically takes back what he said and is not in the bread any more. Is this reasonable? I am skeptical of this scheme.

Eastern Orthodox on the other hand don't typically get so deep into the Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs. Anglican "Real Presence + Secret Potential Withdrawal" debates that have divided the Western Christian world so deeply.

Orthodox collectively affirm that Christ's body is actually served as food, and it's not just a symbol or only "virtually/metaphorically" there in bread.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 06:28:39 PM by rakovsky »

Offline RaphaCam

  • Holy Martyr Mercurius
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,573
  • Please pray for my family and for myself
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2016, 07:18:18 PM »
I'll quote from the Confession of Dositheus.

Quote
In the celebration of this [(the Eucharist)] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, [...]

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread. [...]


Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.



« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 07:18:36 PM by RaphaCam »
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." (Psalm 90:1)

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese). Last article: Como posso lidar com minha condição pecadora?

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,200
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2016, 07:31:57 PM »
I'll quote from the Confession of Dositheus.

Quote
In the celebration of this [(the Eucharist)] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, [...]

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread. [...]


Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.
For Pope Gelasius, there was both bread and body after the change.
For St Cyril, there was only body not bread after the change, the appearance of bread notwithstanding.

So there are different theories.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Holy Martyr Mercurius
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,573
  • Please pray for my family and for myself
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2016, 07:57:27 PM »
I see. I didn't know a Pope of Rome had come to defend this. I've heard many Orthodox questioning the concept of transubstatiation for its relationship to Roman Catholic Aristotelism, for it's a mystery, but I've never seen anyone criticise the Confession of Dositheus explicitly, or saying some specific point of RC transubstantiation was outright wrong.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." (Psalm 90:1)

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese). Last article: Como posso lidar com minha condição pecadora?

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,200
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2016, 08:02:09 PM »
I see. I didn't know a Pope of Rome had come to defend this. I've heard many Orthodox questioning the concept of transubstatiation for its relationship to Roman Catholic Aristotelism, for it's a mystery, but I've never seen anyone criticise the Confession of Dositheus explicitly, or saying some specific point of RC transubstantiation was outright wrong.
I am just saying that there are different theories and that it's hard to define everything on this dogmatically.
It's normal for Orthodox to speak of the "change" and to say metaousia, transubstantiation. But it's also normal for Church fathers to refer to the "bread" after the consecration.

But the symbol-only view is not part of Orthodox thought, especially today after the debates of the 16th c.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • "Mor has a huge ego"
  • Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,758
  • Abp Yeznik Petrosian Defender of the Faith
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2016, 08:21:17 PM »
Let me give an example. Rather curious for me is that a strict reading of the Anglican (NOT Orthodox) Articles of religion...

rakovsky,

You've been warned in the past about discussing non-Orthodox teachings in sections of the forum in which that is prohibited, so I'm sure you know that this post is not appropriate for Faith Issues.  Therefore, I am imposing a warning of thirty (30) points.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please PM me.

Mor Ephrem, moderator
Quote from: Fr Alexander Schmemann
The Gospel is quite clear: both saints and sinners love God. "Religious" people do not love him, and whenever they can, they crucify him.

Of course, OC.net is not reflective of the Church, but is rather a surreal bubble. I have visited a lot of different parishes around the world and have listened to many hours of AFR...

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2016, 08:25:41 PM »
neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ

That would seem to rule out the fanciful theories occassionally advanced by posters here, that the carbohydrates in the bread are replaced by proteins, or that it visibly changes to flesh under a microscope.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2016, 08:26:26 PM »
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 08:26:35 PM by Minnesotan »
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,707
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2016, 08:51:31 PM »
neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ

That would seem to rule out the fanciful theories occassionally advanced by posters here, that the carbohydrates in the bread are replaced by proteins, or that it visibly changes to flesh under a microscope.

Who says that? I'm not recalling anyone other than maybe Psadi.

Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2016, 09:14:11 PM »
neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ

That would seem to rule out the fanciful theories occassionally advanced by posters here, that the carbohydrates in the bread are replaced by proteins, or that it visibly changes to flesh under a microscope.

Who says that? I'm not recalling anyone other than maybe Psadi.

That was mainly who I was referring to. (And also mockingbird).
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,946
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2016, 11:15:46 PM »
I personally have no problem with Transubstantiation itself, but it is incorrect in practice. You should not try to intellectualize the Holy Mysteries. It can lead you into very dangerous territory.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,707
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2016, 01:08:12 AM »
neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ

That would seem to rule out the fanciful theories occassionally advanced by posters here, that the carbohydrates in the bread are replaced by proteins, or that it visibly changes to flesh under a microscope.

Who says that? I'm not recalling anyone other than maybe Psadi.

That was mainly who I was referring to. (And also mockingbird).

I don't think she was advocating that but rather trying to reductio ad absurdum the Catholic or the Orthodox view.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,256
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2016, 08:38:14 AM »
It is one of several theories on the question among Orthodox.

Orthodoxy goes by the Church fathers and there is no ecumenical council on the question. The fathers have opposing opinions, but Orthodox don't make this a big debate between ourselves like Protestants and Catholics have, which could easily lead to confusion on the part of many Protestants who try to rigidly define the mysteries as technical dogmas.

Let me give an example. Rather curious for me is that a strict reading of the Anglican (NOT Orthodox) Articles of religion seems to say that Jesus' body is given and taken in the Eucharist ritual, and also claim that the faithful eat it but the unworthy don't. And it says: "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ" . This could suggest that the real presence is in the bread, and that it's not just a symbol, since after all, even the unworthy take the symbol. One of the authors of the Anglican Articles, Bp. Guest, says he inserted the word "given" to prove the real presence in the bread.

But how does it happen that the unworthy don't take Jesus' body according to Anglicans? One Anglican explanation I read and also was told is that Jesus secretly removes himself from the bread without the unworthy knowing it. In this Anglican scheme, the unworthy is told by Jesus that he is in the bread, but then Jesus basically takes back what he said and is not in the bread any more. Is this reasonable? I am skeptical of this scheme.

Eastern Orthodox on the other hand don't typically get so deep into the Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs. Anglican "Real Presence + Secret Potential Withdrawal" debates that have divided the Western Christian world so deeply.

Orthodox collectively affirm that Christ's body is actually served as food, and it's not just a symbol or only "virtually/metaphorically" there in bread.

Your interpretation of Article XXIX is not an interpretation that any Anglican I am aware of, actually holds.  Here's the text: The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.


Clearly, this means that, as St. Paul says, the unworthy eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.  It does not say that Christ "secretly withdraws" himself from the sacrament.
"Homosexuality has been a popular topic, but not Satanic trances."

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,200
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2016, 03:26:17 PM »
Your interpretation of Article XXIX is not an interpretation that any Anglican I am aware of, actually holds.  Here's the text: The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.


Clearly, this means that, as St. Paul says, the unworthy eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.  It does not say that Christ "secretly withdraws" himself from the sacrament.
James,
I understand what you mean and would prefer to talk with you about what I read in the Anglican literature in the Orthodox-Protestant discussion section.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 03:27:39 PM by rakovsky »

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,264
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Transubstantiation
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2016, 04:21:23 PM »
Does the Orthodox faith teach transubstantiation ?
Pretty much. Why?
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net