OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 04:41:27 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 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do EO's partake of the Body and Blood and also Bread and Wine?  (Read 8486 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,212


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #135 on: February 17, 2012, 12:26:20 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #136 on: February 17, 2012, 12:26:39 PM »

now that i think more i don`t know why the molecules of the bread and wine need to change as in to stop being what they were rather than divine energies being added to their and in their molecular composition.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 12:27:06 PM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #137 on: February 17, 2012, 12:40:15 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

I said that in relation with the Eucharist.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
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 #138 on: February 17, 2012, 12:41:07 PM »

Here is what I can conclude from this discussion. If FrHLL's description is an accurate portrayal of what the EO Church teaches, then we do not share a common faith on this matter after all. For the Catholic, the Eucharist is not bread and it can not be called bread unless we mean that in a metaphorical sense because, for Catholics, the Eucharist is Christ and nothing else. From the Orthodox persepective, it is Christ, but it is also some kind of bread (Heavenly Bread). Thus, we do not agree.
My question then is this: Is FrHLL's understanding the generally accepted Eastern Orthodox view? Not that I doubt you FrHLL, but I have seen varying understadnings of Eastern Orthodox theoloogy from different people.

I would not disagree with FrHLL's exposition in any way. But I do think he is giving something of an 'advanced' course here. I don't think your 'average' Orthodox would think to express it in this way. For the most part we stick to 'It is the Body and Blood of Christ', with what FrHLL has been explaining here available to those who wish to delve further.

That said, I'm not sure we are as far apart as you seem to be taking it. We agree that it is not bread (the point of the St. Cyril quote), but it is Bread. Not earthly bread but Heavenly Bread. Look at in this sense--both our Church's agree that when Christ said "This is my body", "This is my blood" He meant it literally.  FrHLL (and Orthodoxy) is just applying the same logic to John 6: 48-56. "My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink".
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
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #139 on: February 17, 2012, 12:43:39 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,212


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #140 on: February 17, 2012, 01:31:27 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.
For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 17, 2012, 02:37:12 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..



Careful...the most pure Body and most precious Blood has come down from heaven...in an ineffable way.

We are back to what is meant by "substance" and then the question of what Eucharist is...substantially.

PS: Didn't catch PtA's note till after this posted but it is similar line of inquiry...You don't want to elide it if possible but go at it directly.  Science will NOT detect a corporeal body in Eucharist!!
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 02:39:00 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #142 on: February 17, 2012, 03:35:49 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.
For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Which word are we talking about?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #143 on: February 17, 2012, 03:41:16 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..



Careful...the most pure Body and most precious Blood has come down from heaven...in an ineffable way.

We are back to what is meant by "substance" and then the question of what Eucharist is...substantially.

PS: Didn't catch PtA's note till after this posted but it is similar line of inquiry...You don't want to elide it if possible but go at it directly.  Science will NOT detect a corporeal body in Eucharist!!

Why would they detect a corporeal body in the Eucharist?I don`t think we are cannibals and we are not really eating the flesh-flesh of Jesus Christ.

On another hand they say that they found human heart tissue and blood tissue in the "Bleeding Host Miracle in Betania,Venezuela in 1998".
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 03:42:11 PM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #144 on: February 17, 2012, 04:24:23 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

The Confession of 1640, borrowed from Jesuit catechisms, was amended many times before it was received by anyone, including the two local councils most famous for amending it and only thereafter receiving it (the local synods of Iassy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). Fyi, the Synod of 1672, although somtimes wrongly called "pan-Orthodox," had 8 bishops that were all part of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem, the rest being Archimandrites from Jerusalem with a few from other places). 

The council of 1727, on the other hand, was fully Pan-Orthodox, and had this to say on the matter: 

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord...   As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word metabole, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this Mystery."


In an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727 we find a re-affirmation that the word "TRANSUBSTANTIATION" is "the most fitting statement of this mystery" and the "most accurately significant declaration of this change" in the elements. This Council reads --

    "It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.

    "Not that the consecration is effected by the words 'Take, eat,' etc., or by the words 'Drink ye all of it,' etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, '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 Ghost,' as the most glorious Apostles and Fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, 'Do this for My memorial.'

    "Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

    "As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ." (Stone, page 182-184)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm
You do realize that you're just giving us a different translation of the same statement you quoted from FatherHLL? So, what's the difference between transubstantiation and metabole?

Thanks Peter.  And that is the point.  The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation).  The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate.  Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.   
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,413


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #145 on: February 17, 2012, 04:33:27 PM »

I worry when I read posters referring to 'molecular' nature etc... It is a slippery slope from there to strict empiricism and Orthodoxy has never applied such tests to anything - unlike the Roman Church. ('proving' miracles, etc....) I think we need to remember, to paraphrase St. Paul, that we see things now as through a mirror or in a dim light. Some things are mysteries to us in our human condition and try as we might to fully explain them or define them, we are unable to either find words to totally express these mysteries or else we lose our faith in trying to prove them by means of logic and reason.
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #146 on: February 17, 2012, 04:56:33 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

The Confession of 1640, borrowed from Jesuit catechisms, was amended many times before it was received by anyone, including the two local councils most famous for amending it and only thereafter receiving it (the local synods of Iassy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). Fyi, the Synod of 1672, although somtimes wrongly called "pan-Orthodox," had 8 bishops that were all part of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem, the rest being Archimandrites from Jerusalem with a few from other places). 

The council of 1727, on the other hand, was fully Pan-Orthodox, and had this to say on the matter: 

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord...   As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word metabole, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this Mystery."


In an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727 we find a re-affirmation that the word "TRANSUBSTANTIATION" is "the most fitting statement of this mystery" and the "most accurately significant declaration of this change" in the elements. This Council reads --

    "It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.

    "Not that the consecration is effected by the words 'Take, eat,' etc., or by the words 'Drink ye all of it,' etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, '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 Ghost,' as the most glorious Apostles and Fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, 'Do this for My memorial.'

    "Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

    "As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ." (Stone, page 182-184)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm
You do realize that you're just giving us a different translation of the same statement you quoted from FatherHLL? So, what's the difference between transubstantiation and metabole?

Thanks Peter.  And that is the point.  The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation).  The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate.  Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.   

My bad than.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #147 on: February 17, 2012, 05:10:02 PM »

Thanks Peter.  And that is the point.  The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation).  The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate.  Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.

Darwell Stone cites the decree of the 1727 Synod in his book A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.  He offers this translation of the sentence in question:  "As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change (metaboles) of the bread and wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word Transubstantiation (metousioseos), which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery" (I:185).  (I'm not good at transliterating Greek words, so if I've botched up a letter or two, please excuse.)

Does anyone have access to the Greek text to confirm or disconfirm this translation?  Stone was a careful scholar.  I would be surprised if he mistranslated the text, but I've been surprised before in my life.  It's also possible that he translated a corrupt text.  Stone cites the Collectio conciliorum recentiorum Ecclesiae universae, ed. by Martin and Petit, as the source of the text.  Stone was an Anglican. I don't think he had a Latin axe to grind.   

« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 05:11:21 PM by akimel » Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #148 on: February 17, 2012, 06:25:43 PM »

I don't think we need to get very technical about the meaning of "substance" when discussing the eucharistic change.  No doubt it had a technical meaning for Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics; but as Fr HLL notes, the Council of Trent avoided the use of the word "accident" and instead chose the word "appearance."  This suggests that we are to interpret the Tridentine terminology in commonsense, non-technical fashion.  Just as "appearance" designates the qualities of an object that we perceive, so "substance" designates the reality of an object.  Substance answers the question "What is that object?"  To say that the substance of the bread has been changed into the substance of the Body of Christ is simply to say that the bread has become and now is the Body of Christ.  We are not talking about the molecular structure of the bread nor are we talking about some inner essence that lies underneath the physical qualities.  As Catholic theologian Colman O'Neill states:

Quote
What the dogma states is no more than what is required if Christ's words, as spoken at the Last Supper and at Mass, are to be understood as referring to the thing placed on the table or contained in the cup.  For, at the pre-philosophical level of common sense, "substance" is that which permits us to state that a thing existing independently of ourselves, our knowledge or our attitudes, is either bread or the body of Christ.  And it is apparent to common sense that a thing understood this way may not be simultaneously bread and the body of Christ.  By her dogmatic statement the Church makes clear the sense in which she reads the scriptural report of Christ's words at the Last Supper:  the word "is" indicates, as a result of Christ's power, real identity between what lay on the table and his body.  (New Approaches to the Eucharist, p. 98)

We are simply engaged in pre-philosophical identification of things.  If this is true about Trent, then it is most certainly true for the Orthodox bishops and theologians who appropriated this way of speaking.  We don't need to get too technical. 

Please understand:  I am not arguing that substance language is the best way to speak of the eucharistic presence.  I am just trying to help the brethren to understand what Latin Catholics mean when they employ this language.     
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #149 on: February 17, 2012, 07:07:44 PM »

Thanks Peter.  And that is the point.  The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation).  The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate.  Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.

Darwell Stone cites the decree of the 1727 Synod in his book A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.  He offers this translation of the sentence in question:  "As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change (metaboles) of the bread and wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word Transubstantiation (metousioseos), which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery" (I:185).  (I'm not good at transliterating Greek words, so if I've botched up a letter or two, please excuse.)

Does anyone have access to the Greek text to confirm or disconfirm this translation?  Stone was a careful scholar.  I would be surprised if he mistranslated the text, but I've been surprised before in my life.  It's also possible that he translated a corrupt text.  Stone cites the Collectio conciliorum recentiorum Ecclesiae universae, ed. by Martin and Petit, as the source of the text.  Stone was an Anglican. I don't think he had a Latin axe to grind.   


Interesting.  The translation I used is from the oodegr.  We would have to confirm whether it was a corrupt text. 
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #150 on: February 17, 2012, 07:27:53 PM »

The essence of the bread and wine is transliterated with the essence of the Body and Blood of Christ... it is still bread and wine but now what contains the essentials for our body , 'bread and wine' , contains also the essentials for our soul.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,212


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #151 on: February 17, 2012, 08:58:25 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.
For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Which word are we talking about?
substance
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #152 on: February 17, 2012, 09:24:03 PM »


Please understand:  I am not arguing that substance language is the best way to speak of the eucharistic presence.  I am just trying to help the brethren to understand what Latin Catholics mean when they employ this language.     

One thing that can be counted on is that the is-ness of the Body and Blood of Christ as Eucharist is not corporeal.  It is the incarnate and glorified body of the Risen Christ.

We never could think of Jesus as simply a human corpus.  Not even this particular body.

He always was God and man, Incarnate.  So even in this life he was something other.

The the idea of real presence takes both realities into account.  The Absolute Uniqueness of Jesus in this life and the great mystery of his Death, Resurrection and Ascension, and the continuing re-presentation of his life, death and resurrection on the holy altar at every liturgy, both inside and out of time.

Much of what is held in the Fathers as the reality of Eucharist comes from their understanding of the Gospel of John, as the Blessed Apostle presents the Word to us. 

I will say this much: if anyone seeks to really comprehend the meanings given to real presence by St. Thomas Aquinas then they must first read his commentary on the Gospel of John where he uses Origen and St. John Chrysostom very heavily in his teaching on those sacred pages.   It is from this mystical understanding of the Word that he works to find language that best represents the mysteries that are substantially inherent as Eucharist.  There is not the disconnect, east to west, that these kinds of discussions sometimes express.


 You wrote that Thomas Aquinas found language that best represents the mysteries that are substantially inherent as Eucharist. Thas is too much in the Faith Issues forum from the non-Orthodox poster.

30 days of moderation - MK.
Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #153 on: February 18, 2012, 05:45:17 AM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.
For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Which word are we talking about?
substance

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.We are discussing the Eucharist from the Orthodox point of view.


It is bread and wine with divine ingredients.To the ingredients of the bread and wine it is added divine energies.

Correct me if I am wrong but we are better than this Latins, we are not cannibals.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #154 on: February 18, 2012, 09:47:05 AM »

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.We are discussing the Eucharist from the Orthodox point of view.


It is bread and wine with divine ingredients.To the ingredients of the bread and wine it is added divine energies.

Correct me if I am wrong but we are better than this Latins, we are not cannibals.

Knowing what "substance" means, at least when employed to speak of the eucharistic change is not irrelevant, as the Orthodox Church used this language for 500 years.  Hence I think it is important to figure out what she meant when she used it, not just for historical reasons but to ensure that we maintain a continuity of meaning in our present eucharistic reflection and discourse.  We don't want to say less than she did during those 500 years.    

I am curious.  When you state that the divine energies are added to the bread and wine, which of our Fathers explicitly say this?  

The charge of cannibalism is interesting and very much to the point.  Some of the most realistic language about the eucharistic presence is found in the Eastern tradition.  Consider, for example, this passage from St John Chrysostom:

"Wherefore this also Christ hath done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and to show his love for us; he hath given to those who desire him not only to see him, but even to touch, and eat him, and fix their teeth in his flesh, and to embrace him, and satisfy all their love."

One disadvantage of transubstantiation is that it seems to exclude precisely this way of talking.  Transubstantiation seemingly makes a clear distinction between the sensible qualities of the bread and wine (the appearances) and the nontangible, imperceptible substance of the bread and wine, which has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood.  Thus when we eat and drink the elements, we do not physically touch, eat, and drink the Body and Blood.  The mysteriological model, as described by Fr HLL, actually allows us to talk just like St John did.  If we are never accused of cannibalism, then we are probably not being faithful to the Tradition.      

« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 10:08:22 AM by akimel » Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #155 on: February 18, 2012, 10:56:06 AM »

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.We are discussing the Eucharist from the Orthodox point of view.


It is bread and wine with divine ingredients.To the ingredients of the bread and wine it is added divine energies.

Correct me if I am wrong but we are better than this Latins, we are not cannibals.

Knowing what "substance" means, at least when employed to speak of the eucharistic change is not irrelevant, as the Orthodox Church used this language for 500 years.  Hence I think it is important to figure out what she meant when she used it, not just for historical reasons but to ensure that we maintain a continuity of meaning in our present eucharistic reflection and discourse.  We don't want to say less than she did during those 500 years.    

I am curious.  When you state that the divine energies are added to the bread and wine, which of our Fathers explicitly say this?  

The charge of cannibalism is interesting and very much to the point.  Some of the most realistic language about the eucharistic presence is found in the Eastern tradition.  Consider, for example, this passage from St John Chrysostom:

"Wherefore this also Christ hath done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and to show his love for us; he hath given to those who desire him not only to see him, but even to touch, and eat him, and fix their teeth in his flesh, and to embrace him, and satisfy all their love."

One disadvantage of transubstantiation is that it seems to exclude precisely this way of talking.  Transubstantiation seemingly makes a clear distinction between the sensible qualities of the bread and wine (the appearances) and the nontangible, imperceptible substance of the bread and wine, which has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood.  Thus when we eat and drink the elements, we do not physically touch, eat, and drink the Body and Blood.  The mysteriological model, as described by Fr HLL, actually allows us to talk just like St John did.  If we are never accused of cannibalism, then we are probably not being faithful to the Tradition.      



I have been told that we don`t use the word 'transubtsantiation' .

I don`t think that we are cannibals.I don`t think that we eat the body-body of Christ or drink the blood-blood of Christ.. I think my G-d will never make anything immoral and I think that He is better than that.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #156 on: February 18, 2012, 11:39:44 AM »

Cannibals eat dead flesh.  We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ.  Do you find this offensive?  Read John 6.  Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him. 

A good place to begin is St Cyril of Jerusalem's lecture on the Body and Blood of Christ.  I have given one passage from St John Chrysostom.  Numerous more from his writings could be produced that "sound" like "cannibalism."  What do you think of this text from St Theophylact?

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations.  That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism.  Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies."  He said, "This is my body." 

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed:  Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ."  The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that?  The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical. 
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,212


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #157 on: February 18, 2012, 01:26:56 PM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..


So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.
For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Which word are we talking about?
substance

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.
Actually, it is your problem when you substitute your own idiosyncratic definition of substance for the definition given us by the Fathers and the Church and build your arguments according to your definition.

We are discussing the Eucharist from the Orthodox point of view.
I'm trying to. You appear to prefer discussing the Eucharist from your own point of view, using your own definitions of key terms.

It is bread and wine with divine ingredients.To the ingredients of the bread and wine it is added divine energies.
Is that really the Orthodox point of view, or is it merely your own, based on your own definitions of words?

Correct me if I am wrong but we are better than this Latins, we are not cannibals.
Nobody's saying that the Latins are cannibals except you.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 01:31:18 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,413


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #158 on: February 18, 2012, 01:50:24 PM »

For all of the words passing back and forth, this issue is not one upon which a schism inducing difference exists or is justified between the Roman Church and Orthodoxy. Someone mentioned that in the 17th and 18th century the Orthodox position was more clearly explained so as not to be confused with that of the Protestants. As to the difference between the Roman and our position, leave it to the academicians and the theologians to split hairs. Translations and nuance, nuance and translations. Around and around we go.....
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #159 on: February 18, 2012, 02:19:42 PM »

Cannibals eat dead flesh.  We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ.  Do you find this offensive?  Read John 6.  Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him. 

A good place to begin is St Cyril of Jerusalem's lecture on the Body and Blood of Christ.  I have given one passage from St John Chrysostom.  Numerous more from his writings could be produced that "sound" like "cannibalism."  What do you think of this text from St Theophylact?

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations.  That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism.  Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies."  He said, "This is my body." 

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed:  Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ."  The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that?  The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical. 

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,212


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #160 on: February 18, 2012, 02:22:05 PM »

Cannibals eat dead flesh.  We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ.  Do you find this offensive?  Read John 6.  Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him. 

A good place to begin is St Cyril of Jerusalem's lecture on the Body and Blood of Christ.  I have given one passage from St John Chrysostom.  Numerous more from his writings could be produced that "sound" like "cannibalism."  What do you think of this text from St Theophylact?

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations.  That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism.  Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies."  He said, "This is my body." 

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed:  Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ."  The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that?  The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical. 

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.
Well, then, I guess that makes me a cannibal.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #161 on: February 18, 2012, 02:35:02 PM »

Cannibals eat dead flesh.  We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ.  Do you find this offensive?  Read John 6.  Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him. 

A good place to begin is St Cyril of Jerusalem's lecture on the Body and Blood of Christ.  I have given one passage from St John Chrysostom.  Numerous more from his writings could be produced that "sound" like "cannibalism."  What do you think of this text from St Theophylact?

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations.  That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism.  Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies."  He said, "This is my body." 

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed:  Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ."  The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that?  The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical. 

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.
Well, then, I guess that makes me a cannibal.
...and a vampire. Roll Eyes
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,021



WWW
« Reply #162 on: February 18, 2012, 06:05:46 PM »


No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?
Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

..and a vampire. Roll Eyes

What about you, Jetavan?  Are you agreeing that this is cannibalism and taking it a step higher to being a vampire.

Very sad commentary by Orthodox individuals.  Really.

Once again, you've all managed to take the most Holy Gifts, something that our Creator has given us for our own salvation, and dissected it to the smallest molecule and argued over what it is composed of, and what it is or isn't.

You are missing the point....Christ said "'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me'" (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

Christ, Himself, instructed us to do this.  He didn't stop and explain the details, or how the Holy Spirit works precisely.  He told us what we needed to know for our own salvation, and apparently the "how" isn't necessary for us to know.

Christ also said He is the Door....yet, He's certainly not a plank of wood.  He is the Light, and yet, He looks different from a lantern.

You either believe, or you don't.

....and if you don't....it would best for you that you NOT take Holy Communion.

For it is said:  "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep"  1 Cor. 11:30

Regular oven bread, and red wine would hardly cause such calamity to befall mankind.  Beware.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #163 on: February 18, 2012, 06:12:57 PM »


No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?
Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

..and a vampire. Roll Eyes

What about you, Jetavan?  Are you agreeing that this is cannibalism and taking it a step higher to being a vampire.
No, I disagree, which is what the  Roll Eyes was all about. I've heard Pentecostals claim that Catholics were cannibals and vampires.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #164 on: February 18, 2012, 06:18:22 PM »


No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?
Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

..and a vampire. Roll Eyes

What about you, Jetavan?  Are you agreeing that this is cannibalism and taking it a step higher to being a vampire.

Very sad commentary by Orthodox individuals.  Really.

Once again, you've all managed to take the most Holy Gifts, something that our Creator has given us for our own salvation, and dissected it to the smallest molecule and argued over what it is composed of, and what it is or isn't.

You are missing the point....Christ said "'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me'" (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

Christ, Himself, instructed us to do this.  He didn't stop and explain the details, or how the Holy Spirit works precisely.  He told us what we needed to know for our own salvation, and apparently the "how" isn't necessary for us to know.

Christ also said He is the Door....yet, He's certainly not a plank of wood.  He is the Light, and yet, He looks different from a lantern.

You either believe, or you don't.

....and if you don't....it would best for you that you NOT take Holy Communion.

For it is said:  "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep"  1 Cor. 11:30

Regular oven bread, and red wine would hardly cause such calamity to befall mankind.  Beware.



I had Holy Communion multiple times, since childhood.When I was a child i didn`t knew the theological implications all I knew is that it was something holy.Lately I have been having a lot of struggles with the Eucharist, because of cannibalism.. It is one of the various reasons that made me intrerupt Confession/Communion... I just can`t take the idea of cannibalism... It is completely and ABSOLUTELY inapropriate... I'd better not commune again than commit cannibalism... The idea is extremely sick... I personally deep down believe that this is not the case.Well I want to believe that..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #165 on: February 18, 2012, 06:21:41 PM »


No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?
Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

..and a vampire. Roll Eyes

What about you, Jetavan?  Are you agreeing that this is cannibalism and taking it a step higher to being a vampire.
No, I disagree, which is what the  Roll Eyes was all about. I've heard Pentecostals claim that Catholics were cannibals and vampires.

those who claim to do that deserve all the mockery in the world as some who have recoursed to something subhuman... it is a sadic, barbaric and sick idea.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,021



WWW
« Reply #166 on: February 18, 2012, 06:34:17 PM »

I had Holy Communion multiple times, since childhood.When I was a child i didn`t knew the theological implications all I knew is that it was something holy.Lately I have been having a lot of struggles with the Eucharist, because of cannibalism.. It is one of the various reasons that made me intrerupt Confession/Communion... I just can`t take the idea of cannibalism... It is completely and ABSOLUTELY inapropriate... I'd better not commune again than commit cannibalism... The idea is extremely sick... I personally deep down believe that this is not the case.Well I want to believe that..

So, is it simply Holy Communion that you can't comprehend and seems barbaric to you?

What about Holy Baptism - where you "die" and are reborn.  Let's dissect that notion.  Explain how you "die"....is there a tunnel of light....

I'm truly not poking fun at you Azul, however, there are MANY things in Orthodoxy that are beyond our human comprehension.

Sometimes you simply have to go on faith.  Christ said to do it.  There's NO doubt He said it.  That's good enough for me.

In class today, my group of 9 and 10 year olds began asking about creation...and if God was not made....where did He come from and what was before Him.  Nothing comes from nothing....In their minds there had to be a time "before" God....and He came in from somewhere.

Try explaining that one.  We are used to "scientific" explanations.  We live with logic.  We crave to know the how and why.  That's why mysteries and detective novels are such a hit.

However, when it comes to the Holy, we need to realize our own limitations - given to us by God. 

We use approximately 10% of our brain.  What's the other 90% for?  Perhaps God has left that portion of our minds sleeping, because we wouldn't be able to process and understand it all in our current human state.

I'll pray that you get over this self-imposed hurdle.  You are keeping yourself away from Christ Himself, because you need "proof".

Blessed are they who have not seen, yet, believe.



Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #167 on: February 18, 2012, 06:40:12 PM »

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”  - St Clement of Alexandria

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” - St Clement of Alexandria

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid) - St Clement of Alexandria

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” - St Clement of Alexandria

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)  - St Clement of Alexandria

“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’”  - Origen
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #168 on: February 18, 2012, 06:45:20 PM »

I had Holy Communion multiple times, since childhood.When I was a child i didn`t knew the theological implications all I knew is that it was something holy.Lately I have been having a lot of struggles with the Eucharist, because of cannibalism.. It is one of the various reasons that made me intrerupt Confession/Communion... I just can`t take the idea of cannibalism... It is completely and ABSOLUTELY inapropriate... I'd better not commune again than commit cannibalism... The idea is extremely sick... I personally deep down believe that this is not the case.Well I want to believe that..

So, is it simply Holy Communion that you can't comprehend and seems barbaric to you?

What about Holy Baptism - where you "die" and are reborn.  Let's dissect that notion.  Explain how you "die"....is there a tunnel of light....

I'm truly not poking fun at you Azul, however, there are MANY things in Orthodoxy that are beyond our human comprehension.

Sometimes you simply have to go on faith.  Christ said to do it.  There's NO doubt He said it.  That's good enough for me.

In class today, my group of 9 and 10 year olds began asking about creation...and if God was not made....where did He come from and what was before Him.  Nothing comes from nothing....In their minds there had to be a time "before" God....and He came in from somewhere.

Try explaining that one.  We are used to "scientific" explanations.  We live with logic.  We crave to know the how and why.  That's why mysteries and detective novels are such a hit.

However, when it comes to the Holy, we need to realize our own limitations - given to us by God. 

We use approximately 10% of our brain.  What's the other 90% for?  Perhaps God has left that portion of our minds sleeping, because we wouldn't be able to process and understand it all in our current human state.

I'll pray that you get over this self-imposed hurdle.  You are keeping yourself away from Christ Himself, because you need "proof".

Blessed are they who have not seen, yet, believe.





No such thing as beyond our level of comprehension.That is a dull self-created superstition for manipulative purposes.That is simply saying we are not smart enough, don`t try to be smarter than us, even if those look smarter than us, they are reallly not..

I personally do not think of the Holy Eucharistic in barbaric terms.I think that the bread and wine simply receives divine properties that is all.. It is holy bread and wine, as simple as that.. I don`t have to complicate myself with idiotic immoral gymnastics.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #169 on: February 18, 2012, 06:57:37 PM »

We'd better look at the Holy Eucharist in philosophic terms... How on earth can we take something that has the potential of revealing a lot of splendour and beauty and turn it into something so dark and hideous?

« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 06:57:57 PM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #170 on: February 18, 2012, 07:01:36 PM »

Azul, it would be easy to minimize the offense for you, either by reminding you that we are speaking here of the glorified, incorruptible body of the resurrected Christ or by appending the word "mystical" to the word "body."  But I'm not sure if that would be good for you.  The gospel is built upon the offense of our intellect, sensibilities, and pride.  That the infinite, transcendent deity should become Man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, should live his life as an infant, child, adolescent, and be finally condemned as a criminal and nailed to a cross is offensive.  Faith embraces the offense.  By doing so we are conformed to the Crucified.  

The Eucharist is offensive in precisely the same way.  The Orthodox Church did not invent this offensiveness.  It is grounded on the teachings of our Lord.  I commend to your meditation and prayer the sixth chapter of John:

Quote
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
 
Cannibalism was as scandalous to folks back in the 1st century as it is today.  Jesus knew this.  Yet he confronted his followers with this hard saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and he did not retract it when some of them abandoned him.  

To whom shall we go, Azul?  To whom?  

Before you make any decisions, speak to your priest.  
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 07:02:36 PM by akimel » Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #171 on: February 18, 2012, 07:07:49 PM »

The problem was with the interpretation of the hearers.In the same chapter (John 6) , Jesus is saying what the true food and true drink are, to do the will of God, to do his work, to believe in Him, etc... John accentuates this allegories and points often to the idea of eating drinking as an allegorical spiritual action.. Those who heard the words took them literaly so they thought it was cannibalism...  The problem was with their discernment.. But Jesus said that his words were spirit, and that the spirit is what matters...


To whom shall we go, Azul?  To whom? 
 

To the true God.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #172 on: February 18, 2012, 07:18:12 PM »

I personally do not think of the Holy Eucharistic in barbaric terms.I think that the bread and wine simply receives divine properties that is all.. It is holy bread and wine, as simple as that.. I don`t have to complicate myself with idiotic immoral gymnastics.

I see two decisive problems with your formulation of the eucharistic presence:

1) It doesn't make sense of the Lord's words at the Last Supper:  "This is my body."  "This is my blood."  Jesus did not say, "This bread is penetrated by the Spirit of God"--or any such words such as these.  He identified the loaf with his body; he identified the cup of wine with his blood.  Was Jesus merely speaking symbolically?  The Church Fathers resisted mere symbolic interpretation of the dominical words.    

2) It skips the human nature of Christ, which the body and blood signify.  We are not saved by immediate participation in the divine energies.  We are saved by union with Christ in his human nature and through incorporation into his human nature we are united to his divine nature.  The Eucharist is life because it confers union with the God-Man.  Deified bread eliminates the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ.

Your deified bread interpretation is simple and inoffensive, which is why it probably ain't true.  

Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #173 on: February 18, 2012, 07:22:48 PM »

The problem was with the interpretation of the hearers.In the same chapter (John 6) , Jesus is saying what the true food and true drink are, to do the will of God, to do his work, to believe in Him, etc... John accentuates this allegories and points often to the idea of eating drinking as an allegorical spiritual action.. Those who heard the words took them literaly so they thought it was cannibalism...  The problem was with their discernment.. But Jesus said that his words were spirit, and that the spirit is what matters...

And that is precisely how Zwingli interpreted John 6.  I am almost tempted to refer you to the writings of Martin Luther in response to Zwingli, but I will resist, as this is an Orthodox forum.  Smiley

What Church Fathers and authorities can you provide for your view?  Or does that matter to you at this point?   
Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #174 on: February 18, 2012, 07:28:41 PM »

The problem was with the interpretation of the hearers.In the same chapter (John 6) , Jesus is saying what the true food and true drink are, to do the will of God, to do his work, to believe in Him, etc... John accentuates this allegories and points often to the idea of eating drinking as an allegorical spiritual action.. Those who heard the words took them literaly so they thought it was cannibalism...  The problem was with their discernment.. But Jesus said that his words were spirit, and that the spirit is what matters...

And that is precisely how Zwingli interpreted John 6.  I am almost tempted to refer you to the writings of Martin Luther in response to Zwingli, but I will resist, as this is an Orthodox forum.  Smiley

What Church Fathers and authorities can you provide for your view?  Or does that matter to you at this point?   

Jesus said in John 6 that if anyone eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life.Did Judas have eternal life?Does one who doesn`t believe but barely partakes of the Holy Eucharist somehow, has eternal life?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #175 on: February 18, 2012, 07:37:41 PM »

I personally do not think of the Holy Eucharistic in barbaric terms.I think that the bread and wine simply receives divine properties that is all.. It is holy bread and wine, as simple as that.. I don`t have to complicate myself with idiotic immoral gymnastics.

I see two decisive problems with your formulation of the eucharistic presence:

1) It doesn't make sense of the Lord's words at the Last Supper:  "This is my body."  "This is my blood."  Jesus did not say, "This bread is penetrated by the Spirit of God"--or any such words such as these.  He identified the loaf with his body; he identified the cup of wine with his blood.  Was Jesus merely speaking symbolically?  The Church Fathers resisted mere symbolic interpretation of the dominical words.    

2) It skips the human nature of Christ, which the body and blood signify.  We are not saved by immediate participation in the divine energies.  We are saved by union with Christ in his human nature and through incorporation into his human nature we are united to his divine nature.  The Eucharist is life because it confers union with the God-Man.  Deified bread eliminates the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ.

Your deified bread interpretation is simple and inoffensive, which is why it probably ain't true.  



I think there is a reason why Jesus was alongside with those who were eating at the Last Supper.It is you who are found in difficulty trying to explain how the literal flesh of Christ was in the Bread and how his literal blood was in the wine.Let it not be understood that I am denying the sacramental nature of the eucharist.. But i think the cannibalism stuff has gone too far.. I gave some quotes from Clement of Alexandria and Origen that i found spontaneously...

Jesus described food and drink all around the gospel... the drink that he was to give to the Samaritan woman at the well and to those at the feast of tabernacle in Jerusalem was the Holy Spirit... The food that he "ate" was doing the will of God..  In John 6:35 , Jesus says "“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." In one word he describes what it means to eat his flesh (come to him) and drink his blood (believe in Him)... i think all these to be expressions of the Eucharist..



Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #176 on: February 18, 2012, 08:03:55 PM »

The properties that were in Christ's both divine and human and the core of his being are present in the Holy Eucharist.They are present essentially and not literally.It is not the very blood and flesh of Christ but the essence of these, the essence of his life through which we can participate in His life and He in ours.Not shared directly cannibalistically but indirectly essentially through the work of the Holy Spirit... His life is actualized and activated in us essentially and through the essentials of his being we participate in his full hypostatical Personhood.


Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,212


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #177 on: February 18, 2012, 08:11:32 PM »

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”  - St Clement of Alexandria

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” - St Clement of Alexandria

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid) - St Clement of Alexandria

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” - St Clement of Alexandria

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)  - St Clement of Alexandria

“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’”  - Origen
What do you hope to accomplish by just throwing out these patristic quotes without establishing any context for them and without explaining how they support your point?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 08:11:58 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #178 on: February 19, 2012, 12:22:43 AM »

The two Church Fathers that you cite, Azul, are probably the two best authorities for your position.  The early Alexandrians were known for their mystical/allegorical exegesis of Holy Scripture.  But while both were erudite and brilliant theologians, to whom the Church owes a great debt, neither enjoys particular authority in the Orthodox Church.  Both are judged to have been unorthodox on particular points of theology.  Neither of them are venerated as saints.  Hence you probably don't want to rest your case on their testimony alone.

The properties that were in Christ's both divine and human and the core of his being are present in the Holy Eucharist. They are present essentially and not literally. It is not the very blood and flesh of Christ but the essence of these, the essence of his life through which we can participate in His life and He in ours. Not shared directly cannibalistically but indirectly essentially through the work of the Holy Spirit... His life is actualized and activated in us essentially and through the essentials of his being we participate in his full hypostatical Personhood.

I gladly concede that I do not know what the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is really like; hence I cannot know what "body" and "blood" actually signifies in reference to our Lord's glorified corporeal existence.  But I am also confident that you do not know what you mean when you say that the body and blood are not literally present but rather it is their "essence" that is present, etc., etc.  It seems like you have retreated to all of these abstractions simply so you can reassure yourself that the Eucharist is not a form of cannibalism.  Well, I don't believe that the Eucharist is cannibalism either, for the reasons offered by Dr Michael P. Foley in his article "The Eucharist & Cannibalism."  Foley is a Catholic, but I think that his arguments are easily appropriated by Orthodox. What I especially appreciate about Foley's piece is that he refuses the easy escape of spiritualizing the Eucharistic presence. As a Catholic he might easily have said, "We do not partake of the natural flesh of Christ but its substance," which would be very close to what you are saying.  But instead he stays close to the dominical words and their ecumenical interpretation. 

Instead of philosophizing away the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it is far better, in my opinion, to invoke the mystery of the resurrection as justification and warrant for the Church's eucharistic faith that we truly eat the flesh and drink the blood of the risen Christ.  The radical transformation of Jesus on Pascha should allay all concerns about cannibalism.  Cannibalism belongs to this dying world, but Eucharist is the meal of the Eschaton. 
Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #179 on: February 19, 2012, 08:34:54 AM »

The two Church Fathers that you cite, Azul, are probably the two best authorities for your position.  The early Alexandrians were known for their mystical/allegorical exegesis of Holy Scripture.  But while both were erudite and brilliant theologians, to whom the Church owes a great debt, neither enjoys particular authority in the Orthodox Church.  Both are judged to have been unorthodox on particular points of theology.  Neither of them are venerated as saints.  Hence you probably don't want to rest your case on their testimony alone.

Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, �This is my body,� Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine �in memory of his blood� (Against Marcion 3.19). Some theologians have claimed that the ancient usage of the words �figure� and �represent� suggested that the symbols in some mysterious way became what they symbolized. But Tertullian uses the word �represent� in a number of other places where the word carries a figurative meaning. For example, in Against Marcion 4.40 he says, �He represents the bleeding condition of his flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red.� His interpretation of John 6 similarly indicates that when he spoke of the bread and wine as figures and symbols of Christ�s body and blood, that is exactly what he meant.6 He says that Christ spoke in spiritual terms when referring to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood and did not mean this literally. He holds that the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his blood means appropriating him by faith: �He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.�7 Clearly he did not teach the concept of transubstantiation.

At the same time, there was a continuing representation by many Fathers of the eucharistic elements as figures or symbols of the Lord�s body and blood, although they also believed the Lord was spiritually present in the sacrament. Pope Gelasius I (492-496A.D.), for example, believed that the bread and wine in substance at consecration did not cease to be bread and wine,11 a view shared by Eusebius, Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macanus of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch.12

However, the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defence of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord�s Supper was Augustine. http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Tags: communion 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  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 0.231 seconds with 71 queries.