OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 01:36:47 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Metousiosis: Do the Bread and Wine Remain?  (Read 2315 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« on: October 11, 2011, 02:29:35 PM »

First of all, please accept my apologies. In my time on this forum, I have seen many threads on Eucharistic theology. I've just dug through a few of them myself. Some of them come VERY close to talking about what I'm about to say here, but not quite close enough for my liking, so I want to submit this to you good folks here. I am about to compare and contrast various Eucharistic theologies in an attempt to understand what the Orthodox Church has called "metousiosis." While this is in the Faith Issues forum, and my primary goal is a greater understanding of the Orthodox Eucharistic theology, I will be speaking about and defining theologies from the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican traditions as well. I want to make sure I'm understanding those in my comparing and contrasting, so I ask that members from those groups be allowed to speak to their tradition's teaching on the matter for purposes of clarification.

Now, onto what I actually want to talk about! I've heard from various sources different understandings on the Orthodox theology of the Eucharist. Most recently, I've been looking to the use of the term Metousiosis (Greek: meta + ousia = change/transformation of essence). This phrase has been used in Orthodox circles since the 16th century. Most important, it is found in the Greek language version of the Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow and in the Eucharistic definition of the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).

The Synod, as quoted by J.M. Neale in his History of the Eastern Church, stated,

"When we use the word metousiosis, we by no means think it explains the mode by which the bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, for this is altogether incomprehensible . . . but we mean that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, not figuratively or symbolically, nor by any extraordinary grace attached to them . . . but . . . the bread becomes verily and indeed and essentially the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord."

St. Philaret's Catechism states,

"In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord."

To me, the most interesting statement on the use of the word comes from the Confession of Dositheus from the Synod of Jerusalem which states,

"In the celebration of [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, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world."

Now, the first above quotes make it clear that metousiosis doesn't quite equal transubstantiation, because it doesn't speak of how (essence vs. accidents language is not present in any way) but it does state that the Eucharistic gifts transform into the Body and Blood. To me, this implies that the bread and wine are no more Bread and Wine, which is very similar to the what of Catholic dogma, though omitting the how.

What strikes me most, though, in this last quote, it is said that,

"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."

I've not found this list of "we don't believe..." anywhere else, and the Synod of Jerusalem is the most important local council in the modern history of the Church, its declarations having received nearly Ecumenical recognition as the Orthodox response to Protestant teachings. It has been compared to the Council of Trent.

Now, the meat of what I'm trying to figure out. Orthodoxy refuses to answer the how of the Eucharist, and metousiosis does not answer how, but the definition set forth here seems to state the Orthodox Christians may not believe in the sacramental union, implanation or consubstantiation. It, to me, seems to state that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but truly and only the Body and Blood of Christ. Now, where this particularly concerns me is that I have heard from Orthodox (even some priests) seem to hold rather firmly to consubstantiation, saying that Christ is truly present, but alongside the bread and wine, which remain.

My question is, given the above definitions, which say the bread and wine are transformed into Body and Blood, can we say that the bread and wine remain? Is Consubstantiation a validly Orthodox dogma, given the definitions set forth by St. Philaret and the Synod of Jerusalem? Right now, I'm leaning quite heavily towards "no." Thoughts?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 02:31:24 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2011, 03:33:28 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

If I understand your terms correctly, our Orthodox theology of metousiosis would be to say that the bread and wine during Divine Liturgy change in essence from bread and wine to the Blood and Body of our Lord.  They are not longer bread and wine, but substantially the Blood and Body of Jesus Christ in a very real and quite literal way.  This term is just then stating the facts, for those who might misconstrue the Holy Offering to be a symbol or to be hypostatically united to bread and wine (which would imply that the original nature of ordinary bread and wine remains intact).  This term is a relatively modern term, and is particularly Eastern and so I am not familiar with it from the OO perspective other than by my own personal inferences.

 In the Ethiopian Tradition, we believe that substantially the Holy Offering is changed from ordinary bread and wine, to the actual Blood and Body of Jesus Christ in all that entails.  Any Christological arguments about the nature of Jesus Christ also apply to the consecrated Holy Offering.  The bread is no longer bread by nature, even if it appears as such (just as Jesus Christ was no ordinary man even though He surely appeared as such) rather it has been changed by nature to the Body of Christ.  Perhaps some superstitious folks would need to see the bread turn into a piece of raw meat that appears by nature more like a human Body, however in Orthodox we do not need to be quite so literal to believe.  The Lutherans, seeing bread remain bread, assumed that the nature of bread remained intact because they had observed what appeared ordinary bread.  This is a logical inference, but it is not correct, and is the flaw of the rational and logical theology of the Western traditions. The Lutherans seem to argue that Christ is united with the Bread and Wine, rather than the Offering being changed towards the Blood and Body, which is incorrect, Christ does not hypostatically unite to anything after the Incarnation, rather we can think of the nature and substance of the bread and wine having been replaced by the Nature and Substance of Jesus Christ Incarnate.  This is the same premise as the Roman Catholic Transubstantiation in the most literal sense, but the doctrines and teachings of Transubstantiation are a bit more precise and sometimes almost mathematical than the flavor of the Orthodox.  For example, dogmatically in the Roman Mass there is a point where the Offering becomes the Blood and Body, and times when it specifically is not, whereas in Orthodox the change is a continual process, not a cut and dry this than that.

I would say that consubstantiation is not quite Orthodox for the same reasons the Catholics argue against it, because it may be logical but it is not mystical or Mysterious.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,016



« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2011, 03:37:40 AM »

I am not a theologian and you appear to be more of a theologian.  However, I'll take a stab at an answer based on what I've been taught.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ;
and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ;
Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit."

So, the bread and wine are totally changed into the essence of the Body and Blood of our Lord; "Metousiosis" is a change of essence, but not of substance.  So, the elements of the Holy Communion continue to appear as bread and wine, but are the "essence" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord.  Bread and wine do not "remain."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2011, 11:20:01 AM »

I am not a theologian and you appear to be more of a theologian.  However, I'll take a stab at an answer based on what I've been taught.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ;
and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ;
Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit."

So, the bread and wine are totally changed into the essence of the Body and Blood of our Lord; "Metousiosis" is a change of essence, but not of substance.  So, the elements of the Holy Communion continue to appear as bread and wine, but are the "essence" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord.  Bread and wine do not "remain."

A very simple answer, Basil. Thank you. It made me stop and think, "what does the Liturgy say?" So, in good scholastic nerd fashion, I looked up the Greek!

The epiclesis, in Greek, is:

"Καὶ ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

Allow me to analyze.

The first phrase (color-coded), "And make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ. Amen;" - "Καὶ ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν·"

"make" is "ποίησον" (POI-ee-suhn). This is from the verb ποιέω (poi-EH-oh), meaning "to make, produce, execute esp. works of art" (Liddell & Scott). It is even understood as "perform the rites of sacrifice" (L&S). The word is very meaningful and highly nuanced, nearly as much, IMO, as λόγος (logos). This is the same word (albeit in nominal form) that St. Paul used when he wrote, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship (Gk. ποίημα - poiema), created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Epistle to the Ephesians Ch. 2, viii-x) This is from where English derives the word, "poem."

The second phrase (color-coded), "And that which is in this cup, the Precious Body of Thy Christ. Amen; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen, amen, amen." - "τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

"change" here is "μεταβαλὼν" (meta-bahl-OHN), from μεταβαλλὼ (meta-bahl-OH), meaning "turn quickly or suddenly...to turn about, change, alter, reverse" (L&S). It can be used to mean changing the direction of something (diverting a river, turning a wheel, etc.) as well as modes of thought, "changing one's mind" and operation "to undergo a change, become changed, alter; to change one's purpose" (L&S).

Very interesting, I think. Not sure it really helps the question...but it's interesting! Grin
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2011, 07:52:16 PM »

I am not a theologian and you appear to be more of a theologian.  However, I'll take a stab at an answer based on what I've been taught.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ;
and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ;
Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit."

So, the bread and wine are totally changed into the essence of the Body and Blood of our Lord; "Metousiosis" is a change of essence, but not of substance.  So, the elements of the Holy Communion continue to appear as bread and wine, but are the "essence" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord.  Bread and wine do not "remain."

A very simple answer, Basil. Thank you. It made me stop and think, "what does the Liturgy say?" So, in good scholastic nerd fashion, I looked up the Greek!

The epiclesis, in Greek, is:

"Καὶ ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

Allow me to analyze.

The first phrase (color-coded), "And make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ. Amen;" - "Καὶ ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν·"

"make" is "ποίησον" (POI-ee-suhn). This is from the verb ποιέω (poi-EH-oh), meaning "to make, produce, execute esp. works of art" (Liddell & Scott). It is even understood as "perform the rites of sacrifice" (L&S). The word is very meaningful and highly nuanced, nearly as much, IMO, as λόγος (logos). This is the same word (albeit in nominal form) that St. Paul used when he wrote, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship (Gk. ποίημα - poiema), created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Epistle to the Ephesians Ch. 2, viii-x) This is from where English derives the word, "poem."

The second phrase (color-coded), "And that which is in this cup, the Precious Body of Thy Christ. Amen; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen, amen, amen." - "τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

"change" here is "μεταβαλὼν" (meta-bahl-OHN), from μεταβαλλὼ (meta-bahl-OH), meaning "turn quickly or suddenly...to turn about, change, alter, reverse" (L&S). It can be used to mean changing the direction of something (diverting a river, turning a wheel, etc.) as well as modes of thought, "changing one's mind" and operation "to undergo a change, become changed, alter; to change one's purpose" (L&S).

Very interesting, I think. Not sure it really helps the question...but it's interesting! Grin

I very much appreciate this discussion, but your explanations of the pronunciation of the Greek are cutting my soul.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2011, 09:07:07 PM »

If not mistaken, I think what you are encountering in the Orthodox mindset is the impact of apophatic theology. When speaking of Holy Mysteries, positive definitions can only be pressed so far, and at times it is deemed necessary to establish by negation a warning about pressing too far in some other direction in reaction. "It is not "this", but definitely not "that" either.

Insofar as I have any understanding of the Orthodox conception of "the change" it is that the Holy Mystery does not require that the bread and wine cease being bread and wine for them to be made into what they become. Recall Christ saying about one whom He had healed,"Is it easier to say thy sins be forgiven thee, or take up thy bed and walk?" For Him they were one and the same.  Perhaps it is this way with the Holy Eucharist. From our earthly perspective the bread and wine become His Body and Blood. From the heavenly the "whatness" if one may use such a term, of His Body and Body come to include the "whatness" of the consecrated holy gifts. Christ is not "inpanned" but rather the bread and wine become more in Him than they were before the consecration, yet without ceasing to be what they were.

Consider that if we eat bread though digestion it becomes part us, but what it was before is lost. Our consumption of the Holy Eucharist becomes part of us as well, but because of what it had become it unites us to Christ and to each other…almost as if in eating the Eucharist, the Eucharist eats us and transforms us to be what it is. And as you can see attempts at reasoning though it, creating analogies rapidly breaks down, however useful these things might be as partial bridges to understanding. It is a great and Holy Mystery past the power of mere intellection…and yet it can be experienced and known thoroughly in its experience. Indeed, the holier we become, the clearer and more manifest our intimate knowledge is of what we partake in the Holy Eucharist and we learn it is from this place all the language of our communion prayers, their expressions of approaching with fear and trembling, their sense of awe and dread are born…not in the sentiments of mere religious poets. They teach what our hearts do not yet see. The Mystery is real, and explanations of it crumble to dust in the face of it's open experience.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 09:09:10 PM by Seraphim98 » Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2011, 09:55:52 PM »

I very much appreciate this discussion, but your explanations of the pronunciation of the Greek are cutting my soul.

Lol. My apologies. I didn't use the most precise method, and I learned Erasmian (or, as I like to call it, Protestant) Greek. Grin Surely, it is a problem I must remedy.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2011, 10:03:13 PM »

I very much appreciate this discussion, but your explanations of the pronunciation of the Greek are cutting my soul.

Lol. My apologies. I didn't use the most precise method, and I learned Erasmian (or, as I like to call it, Protestant) Greek. Grin Surely, it is a problem I must remedy.

I don't mind it in scholarly contexts, but if I ever heard the Divine Liturgy celebrated that way my head would explode, hah.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2011, 10:06:26 PM »

I very much appreciate this discussion, but your explanations of the pronunciation of the Greek are cutting my soul.

Lol. My apologies. I didn't use the most precise method, and I learned Erasmian (or, as I like to call it, Protestant) Greek. Grin Surely, it is a problem I must remedy.

I don't mind it in scholarly contexts, but if I ever heard the Divine Liturgy celebrated that way my head would explode, hah.

Lol. I absolutely concur! I really have hoped to teach myself the proper pronunciation and just forget the Erasmian stuff. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to it. My priest always picks on me about it!
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2011, 11:01:42 PM »

The first part seems fine. The second part has some minor errors. This is what I get.

Quote
"τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

"And that which is in this cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ. Amen; Making the change by Your Holy Spirit. amen, amen, amen."
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2011, 11:29:17 PM »

The first part seems fine. The second part has some minor errors. This is what I get.

Quote
"τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

"And that which is in this cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ. Amen; Making the change by Your Holy Spirit. amen, amen, amen."

Oh, dear...how embarrassing!  Embarrassed

Yes, that's totally a typo on my part! How awful. Yes, of course, αἷμα means "blood." It's where we get the prefix hema- like in "hematology" or "hemoglobin." I suppose I just zoned out when I typed that. I'm quite ashamed!
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2011, 11:30:04 PM »

The first part seems fine. The second part has some minor errors. This is what I get.

Quote
"τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

"And that which is in this cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ. Amen; Making the change by Your Holy Spirit. amen, amen, amen."

Oh, dear...how embarrassing!  Embarrassed

Yes, that's totally a typo on my part! How awful. Yes, of course, αἷμα means "blood." It's where we get the prefix hema- like in "hematology" or "hemoglobin." I suppose I just zoned out when I typed that. I'm quite ashamed!

Well, as I understand Roman theology, it's all the same thing anyway, so go for broke.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 704



« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2011, 02:55:47 AM »

Hello Benjamin,

I have read other places that the Jerusalem Synod adopted Roman ideas in its explanation of the mystery, terminology that is not traditionally Orthodox.  Father James Thornton, writing in his work, The Ecumenical Synods of the Orthodox Church, states:


"In their methods and goals, the Synod of Iași ( Jassy) of 1642 and
the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 were closely related and thus belong together conceptually. These Synods sought to defend Eastern Orthodoxy vis-à-vis Western Christianity, and, to do so, both
adopted the tactic of “fighting fire with fire,” viz., of counteracting the doctrinal errors of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism by presenting Orthodoxy in the theological language of the West.

Unfortunately, the subtleties, nuances, and paradoxes of Patristic
thought cannot be fully captured in the theological language of
the West, so that, while recognizing their valuable contribution
to the defense of the Faith, Orthodox generally view these Synods with much less enthusiasm than Western Christians do.

Ironically, it is the latter who, while perhaps disagreeing with their
message, nonetheless, feeling comfortable and conversant with
the terminology that they employ, have come to accept these Synods as authoritative expressions of the Orthodox Faith, and it is for this reason that the Synods of 1642 and 1672 have come to attain an unusual kind of quasi-Œcumenical character."

"The acts of the Synod (usually called The Confession of Dositheos) were
signed by Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem and by representatives of the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Moscow. Summing up the significance of the Synod of Jerusalem, Metropolitan Kallistos states:

On the whole..., the Confession of Dositheus is less Latin than that
of Moghila, and must certainly be regarded as a document of primary importance in the history of seventeenth-century Orthodox theology. Faced by the Calvinism of  [Patriarch Cyril  I] Lukaris,
Dositheus used the weapons which lay nearest to hand—Latin
weapons
but the faith which he defended with these Latin
weapons was not Roman, but Orthodox"  -End of citation-

I would not look to the Jerusalem synod for any proof that Orthodox have the same Eucharistic theology as the Latin church does.

You also stated that these ideas have been around since the 16th century.  You have to keep in mind that the 16th century was 1,500 years after the Ascension, and only a little over 500 years ago.  In Church time that is fairly recent.

I would be more interested in what the Fathers of the Church state about the Eucharist, not a council or Metropolitan that spoke on it over a thousand years later.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 02:58:57 AM by peteprint » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2011, 09:01:13 AM »

The first part seems fine. The second part has some minor errors. This is what I get.

Quote
"τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν."

"And that which is in this cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ. Amen; Making the change by Your Holy Spirit. amen, amen, amen."

Oh, dear...how embarrassing!  Embarrassed

Yes, that's totally a typo on my part! How awful. Yes, of course, αἷμα means "blood." It's where we get the prefix hema- like in "hematology" or "hemoglobin." I suppose I just zoned out when I typed that. I'm quite ashamed!
Don't be embarrassed. You did great!
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2011, 12:22:22 PM »

I very much appreciate this discussion, but your explanations of the pronunciation of the Greek are cutting my soul.

Lol. My apologies. I didn't use the most precise method, and I learned Erasmian (or, as I like to call it, Protestant) Greek. Grin Surely, it is a problem I must remedy.

I mean this in mercy, but.....do please change your pronunciation! It really does 'cut my soul' when I hear Erasmian Greek. I'm sure God isn't bothered, but in my human frailty I keep expecting to have my ears bleed.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2011, 09:23:12 PM »

I very much appreciate this discussion, but your explanations of the pronunciation of the Greek are cutting my soul.

Lol. My apologies. I didn't use the most precise method, and I learned Erasmian (or, as I like to call it, Protestant) Greek. Grin Surely, it is a problem I must remedy.

I mean this in mercy, but.....do please change your pronunciation! It really does 'cut my soul' when I hear Erasmian Greek. I'm sure God isn't bothered, but in my human frailty I keep expecting to have my ears bleed.

Lol. Forgive me, Father! I do intend to, and would never chant or sing in that pronunciation!
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2011, 09:34:06 PM »

I very much appreciate this discussion, but your explanations of the pronunciation of the Greek are cutting my soul.

Lol. My apologies. I didn't use the most precise method, and I learned Erasmian (or, as I like to call it, Protestant) Greek. Grin Surely, it is a problem I must remedy.

I mean this in mercy, but.....do please change your pronunciation! It really does 'cut my soul' when I hear Erasmian Greek. I'm sure God isn't bothered, but in my human frailty I keep expecting to have my ears bleed.

FWIW it is worth, it ain't "Erasmian". Never was such a thing understood properly. It was a method and one still refined and argued over in Classics departments. No Aristotle, Homer, nor Aeschylus sounded much like "contemporary" Greek. The philology behind the study and recuperations of Ancient Greek like most fields is one always in flux and in debate.

False dichotomy.

 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 09:34:38 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tags: transubstantiation  consubstantiation  metousiosis  communion  Eucharist 
Pages: 1   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 0.103 seconds with 43 queries.