OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 04:30:25 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 8986 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #180 on: February 19, 2012, 10:46:22 AM »

Azul, while one one finds in the patristic period a diversity of ways of formulating the eucharistic transformation and presence, the fact remains that the Orthodox Church moved away from symbolic construals and dogmatically affirmed the ontological identity of the Holy Gifts with the glorified humanity of the risen Christ.  The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea rejected the position of the Iconoclasts that the Eucharist may be described as an icon of Christ.  It is not an icon of the Body and Blood; it is the Body and Blood.  How this is possible is, of course, a mystery. I refer you to John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology for further discussion; also Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, volume one, chap. 6. 

I'll close with two quotations from St Ignatius of Antioch.  Note how close Ignatius' language is to the language of Scripture.  Note his refusal to philosophize away the corporeality of the risen Christ.  Many in the Greek world were scandalized by the Church's proclamation that Jesus had been raised from death into a transfigured corporeal existence.  Christ is raised in the flesh.  Note also the gift we receive in the Mystical Supper.  Many, it appears, were equally scandalized by the Church's claim that in the Eucharist we are given to share in the Flesh and Blood this risen Jesus.   

"I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life" (Epistle to the Romans).

"For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father. And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. ... Let no man deceive himself. Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not obtain eternal life, whether he be a king, or a priest, or a ruler, or a private consequence, incur condemnation. ... But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Epistle to the Smyraeans--the entire letter bears close reading). 

St Ignatius expresses the primary and living language of Scripture and liturgy.  It is first-level discourse.  It is not improper for us to reflect on the meaning of this primary language; but if we find that we have explained away all of its offensive particularities--and that is what I fear you have done--then something is wrong.  The truth is compromised. 

This is the same feeling that I get when I read St Thomas Aquinas's on transubstantiation.  I do not dismiss Aquinas, as many Orthodox do.  He was a great theologian and he loved the Holy Eucharist, so beautifully expressed in his hymns.  But his theological account of the eucharistic presence, with its clear and precise distinction between accidents and substance, also makes it difficult for us to affirm that we truly eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of the Savior.  The offense and paradox disappears.  It's like reading a paraphrase of a poem.       

You may find of interest an essay I wrote several years ago, before I became Orthodox:  "Eating Christ."  I do not know if there are things I would now want to change.  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  But I think I would want to insist, as strongly as ever on the need for us to retain the physical language of the eucharistic presence, found in Scripture and Liturgy.           

Logged

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

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #181 on: February 19, 2012, 11:16:08 AM »

You can say anything u want and turn things upside down as much as you want.But you after the consecration do not eat flesh neither do you drink blind.The bread itself does not convert in flesh it still remains bread and the wine itself does not convert in blood.We use different words transmutation , impanation , metosousis, etc... they all refer to a change that happens at a essential inner level... Christ was all about the essence of things not forms.. the forms do not change in any way bread is still bread, wine is still wine , a flesh does not come neither blood.. the essence of bread and wine after the consecration has the essence of Christ, for this is what the words flesh and blood encompass the whole living being and the eucharist contains all these at a substantial level.Even if we say it is the blood of Christ or the Body of Christ it is not the mere raw Body or the mere raw blood of Christ but their essence, Christ at an essential level, the essence of his body and blood and what they mean for us.The "flesh" benefits nothing, the words I told you are spirit and truth(John 6).It's blood is present essentially in the Eucharist and his flesh essentially.So yes it is his true blood and flesh but essentially.Metaosousis - change of essence.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #182 on: February 20, 2012, 06:32:24 PM »

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


Augustine speaks about how, at the last supper, he held himself in his own hands. Thus, he does not hold to the symbolic understanding that you suggest.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #183 on: February 21, 2012, 09:14:42 AM »

I just discovered that none of the hyperlinks that I have provided in this thread are working.  My guess is that I should not have surrounded the URL addresses with quotation marks.  Hopefully the following links will work:

The Eucharist and Cannibalism

Byzantine Theology

Eating Christ
Logged

andronicus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: paleo-orthodox
Posts: 13



« Reply #184 on: April 10, 2012, 08:34:04 AM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed. "Transubstantiation" is a Latin and Western, Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.   
Logged

"The continual remembrance of God is a holy thing."  St. Basil
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #185 on: April 10, 2012, 10:11:57 AM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed. "Transubstantiation" is a Latin and Western, Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.   
How can a change in essence not also include a change in substance?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #186 on: April 10, 2012, 10:53:09 AM »

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.   

Yes, I know what you mean.  In the absence of a centralized Magisterium, it is sometimes difficult to know who speaks for Orthodoxy, especially when everyone is claiming "Orthodoxy teaches ____."  The simply fact is, Orthodox theologians do often disagree with each other on various points of doctrine; but this disagreement does not undermine the fundamental agreement that exists on the critical dogmas of the Faith. 

With regards to the Eucharist, Orthodoxy knows and confesses that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the risen Christ, as evidenced by our adoration and reverence of the Holy Gifts.  Theologians may speculate a bit on precisely what the eucharistic change entails, but no disagreement exists that the Holy Gifts truly are the Body and Body.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #187 on: April 10, 2012, 12:26:08 PM »

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.   

Yes, I know what you mean.  In the absence of a centralized Magisterium, it is sometimes difficult to know who speaks for Orthodoxy, especially when everyone is claiming "Orthodoxy teaches ____."  The simply fact is, Orthodox theologians do often disagree with each other on various points of doctrine; but this disagreement does not undermine the fundamental agreement that exists on the critical dogmas of the Faith. 

With regards to the Eucharist, Orthodoxy knows and confesses that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the risen Christ, as evidenced by our adoration and reverence of the Holy Gifts.  Theologians may speculate a bit on precisely what the eucharistic change entails, but no disagreement exists that the Holy Gifts truly are the Body and Body.
Fr. Kimel, I love the way you cut through all of the nonsense and get to the root of the issue. Great post.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,131



« Reply #188 on: April 10, 2012, 12:36:18 PM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed. "Transubstantiation" is a Latin and Western, Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.   
How can a change in essence not also include a change in substance?

Because that is the way that it is.  That's what the Orthodox theological term "metousiosis" means; it is not to be questioned.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #189 on: April 10, 2012, 12:39:18 PM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed. "Transubstantiation" is a Latin and Western, Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.   
How can a change in essence not also include a change in substance?

Because that is the way that it is.  That's what the Orthodox theological term "metousiosis" means; it is not to be questioned.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand. It seems to me that when an essential change occurs, you now have a new being, a new substance. Can you help me out here?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #190 on: April 10, 2012, 12:42:07 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode! 

Some things are left to faith.

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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #191 on: April 10, 2012, 12:44:28 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode! 

Some things are left to faith.


So, things that are seemingly contradictory are ok in Eastern Orthodoxy? Is that correct?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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 #192 on: April 10, 2012, 01:06:14 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode! 

Some things are left to faith.


So, things that are seemingly contradictory are ok in Eastern Orthodoxy? Is that correct?

When it comes to the core truths of Divine Revelation, "things that are seemingly contradictory" are not only okay but actively embraced as evidence that they are indeed divinely revealed truths, not the product of human reasoning or subject to created categories ("the Trinity", "without change became man").

I don't know if that actually applies to your question to Basil320 as that seems to be more about the cross-linguistic relationship of Gr. 'ousious' and Latin 'substantia' and as such I think it falls more to Fr. Aidan's post about theologians speculating than to a clear 'yes', 'no', or 'yes and no'.
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 #193 on: April 10, 2012, 01:25:44 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode! 

Some things are left to faith.



If we don`t know chances are they aren`t even true..

The Communion Meal in the time of the Apostles was an agape meal , where people put money together and all ate and drink mostly wine and bread in commemoration of Jesus.

Mysteries = Forgeries = Falsities..
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 #194 on: April 10, 2012, 01:29:36 PM »

We can't make things fundamental to our faith,life and practice and don`t really know what they are and what they do.. This is pretty much the whole thing with Christianity and Orthodoxy... We have a lot of yadda yadda yadda but we don`t know exactly what they are, what they do and how they function.
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #195 on: April 10, 2012, 01:31:53 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode!  

Some things are left to faith.



If we don`t know chances are they aren`t even true..

The Communion Meal in the time of the Apostles was an agape meal , where people put money together and all ate and drink mostly wine and bread in commemoration of Jesus.

Mysteries = Forgeries = Falsities..

I disagree.

Just because YOU don't understand how something occurs, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

I certainly "don't know" many things....but, that doesn't mean they don't exist. or are a falsity.

Do you think God has to reveal everything to mankind?  Does man have know everything, in order to believe in God?

Tell me, have you seen God?  Can you prove He is real?  Some people "don't know" where He came from or even where He is.

Does that make Him a unreal, false, a forgery and a falsity?

Do you believe God exists?

« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 01:32:32 PM by LizaSymonenko » 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 #196 on: April 10, 2012, 01:32:35 PM »

that is why we shouldn`t take Christianity seriously because in the real world things don`t go like that.follow the advices of christianity and they will lead you nowhere..
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 #197 on: April 10, 2012, 01:45:02 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode!  

Some things are left to faith.



If we don`t know chances are they aren`t even true..

The Communion Meal in the time of the Apostles was an agape meal , where people put money together and all ate and drink mostly wine and bread in commemoration of Jesus.

Mysteries = Forgeries = Falsities..

I disagree.

Just because YOU don't understand how something occurs, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

I certainly "don't know" many things....but, that doesn't mean they don't exist. or are a falsity.

Do you think God has to reveal everything to mankind?  Does man have know everything, in order to believe in God?

Tell me, have you seen God?  Can you prove He is real?  Some people "don't know" where He came from or even where He is.

Does that make Him a unreal, false, a forgery and a falsity?

Do you believe God exists?



If you don`t understand and know something you should not use it in the first place.Common sense should tell you that.

If God makes anything mandatory than he should reveal it.

You cannot compare God with something emperical or with creation.

When certain fundamental teachings and/or practices , even main teachings and practices of a certain religion that go on for eons are unknown they are most certainly of a superstitious level to say the least.

If the Eucharist would have some magical power than we should feel it.I took the Eucharist on various times i never felt anything.


My faith , conscience, morality and common sense tell me that the Eucharist is a moral flaw...
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 #198 on: April 10, 2012, 01:49:19 PM »

Christianity has a lot of unsolved mysteries .. It has more questions than answers.. Why should we follow a religion who has more "?" than answers?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 01:49:58 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #199 on: April 10, 2012, 01:53:24 PM »

I'm so sorry. I didn't want to mess up this thread. I just wanted to understand how EOs thought on this matter. I'm soooooo sorry.  Sad
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #200 on: April 10, 2012, 02:31:32 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode!  

Some things are left to faith.



If we don`t know chances are they aren`t even true..

The Communion Meal in the time of the Apostles was an agape meal , where people put money together and all ate and drink mostly wine and bread in commemoration of Jesus.

Mysteries = Forgeries = Falsities..

I disagree.

Just because YOU don't understand how something occurs, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

I certainly "don't know" many things....but, that doesn't mean they don't exist. or are a falsity.

Do you think God has to reveal everything to mankind?  Does man have know everything, in order to believe in God?

Tell me, have you seen God?  Can you prove He is real?  Some people "don't know" where He came from or even where He is.

Does that make Him a unreal, false, a forgery and a falsity?

Do you believe God exists?



If you don`t understand and know something you should not use it in the first place.Common sense should tell you that.

If God makes anything mandatory than he should reveal it.

You cannot compare God with something emperical or with creation.

When certain fundamental teachings and/or practices , even main teachings and practices of a certain religion that go on for eons are unknown they are most certainly of a superstitious level to say the least.

If the Eucharist would have some magical power than we should feel it.I took the Eucharist on various times i never felt anything.


My faith , conscience, morality and common sense tell me that the Eucharist is a moral flaw...

Excuse me!

Just whom do you think you are...that God should reveal things to you?!?  The pride and egotism is a bit much!

From your statements on this thread I doubt you are on "your way" to becoming Orthodoxy.

Your pride is blinding you, and hindering your progress.

I suggest you take a step back and rethink your statements before you actually put them in writing.

Believe me, YOU WILL answer before God for not only what you do in life, but, what you say and write.  Therefore, be careful with your words and your judgments against His Church.

I'm curious that if you are not yet Orthodox, how come you "took" the Eucharist?

....you are aware, that if you do not believe the Eucharist to be truly the Body and Blood of Christ....you are "taking" it to the determent and condemnation of your soul?

If you don't believe in the Holy Mysteries....just WHY did you partake of Communion?  What was the purpose of opening your mouth and accepting it? 
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
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #201 on: April 10, 2012, 02:40:20 PM »

that is why we shouldn`t take Christianity seriously because in the real world things don`t go like that.follow the advices of christianity and they will lead you nowhere..

I find this an unacceptable view point!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you are struggling with something in your personal life at the moment.
Perhaps your life is hard and you are looking for someone to blame.

Perhaps you feel God has abandoned you and therefore, He must not exist.

If you have actual questions, we are more than willing to discuss them with you, and help you see the light.

However, your lack of belief, at this moment is blinding you...and I suggest your refrain from posting such nonsense.

....because in order to post in the Faith Issues Forum....you first must have some faith.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 02:50:00 PM by LizaSymonenko » 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
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 #202 on: April 10, 2012, 02:43:39 PM »

I'm so sorry. I didn't want to mess up this thread. I just wanted to understand how EOs thought on this matter. I'm soooooo sorry.  Sad

You have nothing to apologize for.
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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #203 on: April 10, 2012, 02:49:27 PM »

I'm so sorry. I didn't want to mess up this thread. I just wanted to understand how EOs thought on this matter. I'm soooooo sorry.  Sad
You have nothing to apologize for.

Agreed.  Now this guy...

Christianity has a lot of unsolved mysteries .. It has more questions than answers.. Why should we follow a religion who has more "?" than answers?

... based on his posts should not claim to be Orthodox, since he obviously doesn't believe in a few of the most important, core tenets of the faith.  No Communion, no Christian.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #204 on: April 10, 2012, 03:39:17 PM »


No.

This is why it is called a Mystery!

Mystic Gifts.

Beyond our comprehension.

This is like trying to figure out "where" God came from, how He always existed....  It'll make your head explode!  

Some things are left to faith.



If we don`t know chances are they aren`t even true..

The Communion Meal in the time of the Apostles was an agape meal , where people put money together and all ate and drink mostly wine and bread in commemoration of Jesus.

Mysteries = Forgeries = Falsities..

I disagree.

Just because YOU don't understand how something occurs, doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

I certainly "don't know" many things....but, that doesn't mean they don't exist. or are a falsity.

Do you think God has to reveal everything to mankind?  Does man have know everything, in order to believe in God?

Tell me, have you seen God?  Can you prove He is real?  Some people "don't know" where He came from or even where He is.

Does that make Him a unreal, false, a forgery and a falsity?

Do you believe God exists?



If you don`t understand and know something you should not use it in the first place.Common sense should tell you that.

If God makes anything mandatory than he should reveal it.

You cannot compare God with something emperical or with creation.

When certain fundamental teachings and/or practices , even main teachings and practices of a certain religion that go on for eons are unknown they are most certainly of a superstitious level to say the least.

If the Eucharist would have some magical power than we should feel it.I took the Eucharist on various times i never felt anything.


My faith , conscience, morality and common sense tell me that the Eucharist is a moral flaw...

Excuse me!

Just whom do you think you are...that God should reveal things to you?!?  The pride and egotism is a bit much!

From your statements on this thread I doubt you are on "your way" to becoming Orthodoxy.

Your pride is blinding you, and hindering your progress.

I suggest you take a step back and rethink your statements before you actually put them in writing.

Believe me, YOU WILL answer before God for not only what you do in life, but, what you say and write.  Therefore, be careful with your words and your judgments against His Church.

I'm curious that if you are not yet Orthodox, how come you "took" the Eucharist?

....you are aware, that if you do not believe the Eucharist to be truly the Body and Blood of Christ....you are "taking" it to the determent and condemnation of your soul?

If you don't believe in the Holy Mysteries....just WHY did you partake of Communion?  What was the purpose of opening your mouth and accepting it? 


Not to me, but to the Church , even to those whom he mandates certain things, to explain them to them.

What are you talking about? I was born an Orthodox Christian.

The Appealing to "Mystery" to me is a fallacy and annoys me very much.It takes away the credibility of authenticity esspecially when this answer is given in regards to the fundamentals.What the heck did the Church do for 1687 years?Politics and business strategies?An authentic entity should not have unsolved mysteries and questions but rather answers and resolutions.


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 #205 on: April 10, 2012, 03:42:13 PM »

that is why we shouldn`t take Christianity seriously because in the real world things don`t go like that.follow the advices of christianity and they will lead you nowhere..

I find this an unacceptable view point!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you are struggling with something in your personal life at the moment.
Perhaps your life is hard and you are looking for someone to blame.

Perhaps you feel God has abandoned you and therefore, He must not exist.

If you have actual questions, we are more than willing to discuss them with you, and help you see the light.

However, your lack of belief, at this moment is blinding you...and I suggest your refrain from posting such nonsense.

....because in order to post in the Faith Issues Forum....you first must have some faith.



Tell me where will applying the precepts of Christianity in today's society leave you?Perhaps they got outdated? Smiley
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: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #206 on: April 10, 2012, 04:13:49 PM »

What are you talking about? I was born an Orthodox Christian.
You may have been born an Orthodox Christian, but if you deny that Holy Communion is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, you have left the faith and can no longer call yourself Orthodox.
Logged
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #207 on: April 10, 2012, 04:26:20 PM »

that is why we shouldn`t take Christianity seriously because in the real world things don`t go like that.follow the advices of christianity and they will lead you nowhere..

I find this an unacceptable view point!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you are struggling with something in your personal life at the moment.
Perhaps your life is hard and you are looking for someone to blame.

Perhaps you feel God has abandoned you and therefore, He must not exist.

If you have actual questions, we are more than willing to discuss them with you, and help you see the light.

However, your lack of belief, at this moment is blinding you...and I suggest your refrain from posting such nonsense.

....because in order to post in the Faith Issues Forum....you first must have some faith.



Tell me where will applying the precepts of Christianity in today's society leave you?Perhaps they got outdated? Smiley

Tell me what YOUR goals in life are?  If you are concerned about getting somewhere in society...your goals are screwed up.  Your goals should be to live as Christ instructed and hopefully gain acceptance in to His Kingdom one day.

Being "somebody" in today's society, means nothing. It's foolishness.

...and am I outdated?  I certainly hope so....because I would hate to fit in with today's society....filled with lack of morals, hedonism, greed, and lack of faith....

« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 04:26:45 PM by LizaSymonenko » 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
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #208 on: April 10, 2012, 05:36:57 PM »

that is why we shouldn`t take Christianity seriously because in the real world things don`t go like that.follow the advices of christianity and they will lead you nowhere..

I find this an unacceptable view point!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you are struggling with something in your personal life at the moment.
Perhaps your life is hard and you are looking for someone to blame.

Perhaps you feel God has abandoned you and therefore, He must not exist.

If you have actual questions, we are more than willing to discuss them with you, and help you see the light.

However, your lack of belief, at this moment is blinding you...and I suggest your refrain from posting such nonsense.

....because in order to post in the Faith Issues Forum....you first must have some faith.



Tell me where will applying the precepts of Christianity in today's society leave you?Perhaps they got outdated? Smiley

That is the whole point of the exercise: to be hated by the world.

Total Christianity-fail, dude. I don't care how many generations of Greeks or Romanians or whatnot came before you, you are about as Orthodox as Arius.

I don't normally make this type of post, but it is obvious to me from reading your posts that you just don't get it.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #209 on: April 10, 2012, 05:43:26 PM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed. "Transubstantiation" is a Latin and Western, Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.   
How can a change in essence not also include a change in substance?

Because that is the way that it is.  That's what the Orthodox theological term "metousiosis" means; it is not to be questioned.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand. It seems to me that when an essential change occurs, you now have a new being, a new substance. Can you help me out here?

There is no relevant difference between essence and substance. If the ousia of a thing changes, it is then a different thing.

You have probably heard this before, Papist, but when we say metousiosis, we do not use the word with the same level of precision as when the Romans say transubstantiation.

If you look at the formulation adopted by the Council of Jerusalem, you will see the word appears in a long list of words of similar but not identical meaning, indicating that what was meant by the word was a real and effectual change, not just an iconic or symbolic one.

I know it is your contention that our churches agree on the fundamental truth regarding the Precious Gifts, but I don't think the use of the word metousiosis at the Council is sufficient for establishing that.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,131



« Reply #210 on: April 11, 2012, 03:46:38 AM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed. "Transubstantiation" is a Latin and Western, Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.  
How can a change in essence not also include a change in substance?

Because that is the way that it is.  That's what the Orthodox theological term "metousiosis" means; it is not to be questioned.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand. It seems to me that when an essential change occurs, you now have a new being, a new substance. Can you help me out here?

My frustration is that I think some on this topic think too much.  I apologize for being judgemental or acting arrogant; I'm not especially intelligent, I'm not a dummy either.  This discussion has gotten too complicated.  The question is not how many angels fit onto the head of a needle.

The term "transubstantiation" does not exist in Orthodox ecclesiology.  It may be used by some in English because the English language does not have a word that is a direct translation of the Greek term, "metousiosis."  The Greek term "metousiosis" explains, clearly, the Orthodox understanding, teaching/theology, as to what occurs during the Consecretion of the Divine Liturgy Service.  

"...And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The bread and wine are "changed," into the "essence" of the very Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, but the "substance" remains bread and wine; "a change of essence but not substance."

I accept the Orthodox theological term for the "change" that occurs during the Consecretion as stated and understand it as quite logical.



« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 03:48:32 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #211 on: April 11, 2012, 05:50:26 AM »

The bread and wine are "changed," into the "essence" of the very Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, but the "substance" remains bread and wine; "a change of essence but not substance."

I'm sorry, Basil, but this sentence above simply makes no sense in English.

If essence and substance are not precisely the same thing (as I would contend), they are certainly so close in meaning as to render the above non-sensical.

If the ousia (essence) of a thing changes, it is no longer the same thing. The same is true of change in the substantia (substance) of a thing. It is not possible for the essence of a thing to change and for its substance to remain.

I agree with you that metousiosis as understood by the Orthodox doesn't mean the same thing as transubstantiation as understood by the Romans (see my previous post), but you are either playing some weird word games or I am just not getting your argument.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #212 on: April 11, 2012, 11:56:44 AM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.



The term "transubstantiation" does not exist in Orthodox ecclesiology.  It may be used by some in English because the English language does not have a word that is a direct translation of the Greek term, "metousiosis."  The Greek term "metousiosis" explains, clearly, the Orthodox understanding, teaching/theology, as to what occurs during the Consecretion of the Divine Liturgy Service.  

"...And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The bread and wine are "changed," into the "essence" of the very Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, but the "substance" remains bread and wine; "a change of essence but not substance."

I accept the Orthodox theological term for the "change" that occurs during the Consecretion as stated and understand it as quite logical.

Basil, I find your differentiation between transubstantiation and metousiosis implausible, not impossible but implausible.  I would need to see much stronger documentation than you have offered so far.

The term metousiosis appears to have entered into Eastern sacramental vocabulary precisely as a translation of the Latin term transubstantiation.  Thus Fr John Metyendorff:  "Transubstantiation (metousiōsis) appears only in the writings of the Latinophrones of the thirteenth century and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios; but in his case as well direct Latin influence is obvious" (Byzantine Theology).  Darwell Stone confirms that Patriarch Gennadius interpreted the eucharistic change along Latin lines:  the ousia of the bread is changed into the ousia of the Body, the accidents (sumbebekota) remaining unchanged.

In the Confession of Cyril Lucar, metousiosis is explicitly rejected, and a Calvinist construal is affirmed.  Clearly it is the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation that is being rejected in this document .

The Orthodox Church responded to the Confession of Cyril Lucar in the confessions of Met Peter Mogila and Patriarch Dositheus.  In both metousiosis is affirmed:  the ousia of the bread is changed into the ousia of the Body of Christ, but the appearance of the bread remains unchanged.   At no point do these documents distinguish between the Orthodox doctrine of  metousiosis from the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.  The assumption is that the Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the eucharistic change is identical, with one critical qualification:  "we believe that by the word 'transubstantiation' the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety."  By this qualification the Orthodox Church distanced herself from an Aristotelian (or any other philosophical) construal of transubstantiation.   

I simply have not seen any evidence that suggests that when the Orthodox Church adopted the term metousiosis she self-consciously intended to distinguish her teaching from the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.  Did Orthodox synods or theoolgians of this period ever say "We do not believe that the 'substance' of the bread is changed into the 'substance' of the Body; rather, we believe that the 'essence' of the bread is changed into the 'essence' of the Body"?  In other words, did they ever distinguish between the "essence" or 'being" of the bread and the "substance" of the bread?  If they did, can you provide documentation please.  

Earlier in this thread I noted that even as recent as 1972, Archbishop Methodios Fouyas could write:  "Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ."  

« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 12:25:38 PM by akimel » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #213 on: April 11, 2012, 12:27:48 PM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.



The term "transubstantiation" does not exist in Orthodox ecclesiology.  It may be used by some in English because the English language does not have a word that is a direct translation of the Greek term, "metousiosis."  The Greek term "metousiosis" explains, clearly, the Orthodox understanding, teaching/theology, as to what occurs during the Consecretion of the Divine Liturgy Service.  

"...And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The bread and wine are "changed," into the "essence" of the very Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, but the "substance" remains bread and wine; "a change of essence but not substance."

I accept the Orthodox theological term for the "change" that occurs during the Consecretion as stated and understand it as quite logical.

Basil, I find your differentiation between transubstantiation and metousiosis implausible, not impossible but implausible.  I would need to see much stronger documentation than you have offered so far.

The term metousiosis appears to have entered into Eastern sacramental vocabulary precisely as a translation of the Latin term transubstantiation.  Thus Fr John Metyendorff:  "Transubstantiation (metousiōsis) appears only in the writings of the Latinophrones of the thirteenth century and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios; but in his case as well direct Latin influence is obvious" (Byzantine Theology).  Darwell Stone confirms that Patriarch Gennadius interpreted the eucharistic change along Latin lines:  the ousia of the bread is changed into the ousia of the Body, the accidents (sumbebekota) remaining unchanged.

In the Confession of Cyril Lucar, metousiosis is explicitly rejected, and a Calvinist construal is affirmed.  Clearly it is the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation that is being rejected in this document .

The Orthodox Church responded to the Confession of Cyril Lucar in the confessions of Met Peter Mogila and Patriarch Dositheus.  In both metousiosis is affirmed:  the ousia of the bread is changed into the ousia of the Body of Christ, but the appearance of the bread remains unchanged.   At no point do these documents distinguish between the Orthodox doctrine of  metousiosis from the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.  The assumption is that the Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the eucharistic change is identical, with one critical qualification:  "we believe that by the word 'transubstantiation' the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety."  By this qualification the Orthodox Church distanced herself from an Aristotelian (or any other philosophical) construal of transubstantiation.   

I simply have not seen any evidence that suggests that when the Orthodox Church adopted the term metousiosis she self-consciously intended to distinguish her teaching from the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.  Did Orthodox synods or theoolgians of this period ever say "We do not believe that the 'substance' of the bread is changed into the 'substance' of the Body; rather, we believe that the 'essence' of the bread is changed into the 'essence' of the Body"?  In other words, did they ever distinguish between the "essence" or 'being" of the bread and the "substance" of the bread?  If they did, can you provide documentation please.  

Earlier in this thread I noted that even as recent as 1972, Archbishop Methodios Fouyas could write:  "Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ."  



This is so concise and to the point, Father Aidan!!  Thank you so much.  It helps me to see it set out like this.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #214 on: April 11, 2012, 12:36:10 PM »

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance.  Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior,"  but do not believe the substance is changed. "Transubstantiation" is a Latin and Western, Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I am a newbie, and not now (perhaps yet) a member of an Orthodox church.  This explanation of the "change" does not seem to be at all different from where I am now in my thinking.  And yet there seem to be different explanations given, some of which sound very much like the Roman Catholic notion of Transubstantiation.  From an outsider's perspective, it is sometimes difficult to know "who speaks", as it were, for the Orthodox church.  
How can a change in essence not also include a change in substance?

Because that is the way that it is.  That's what the Orthodox theological term "metousiosis" means; it is not to be questioned.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand. It seems to me that when an essential change occurs, you now have a new being, a new substance. Can you help me out here?

My frustration is that I think some on this topic think too much.  I apologize for being judgemental or acting arrogant; I'm not especially intelligent, I'm not a dummy either.  This discussion has gotten too complicated.  The question is not how many angels fit onto the head of a needle.

The term "transubstantiation" does not exist in Orthodox ecclesiology.  It may be used by some in English because the English language does not have a word that is a direct translation of the Greek term, "metousiosis."  The Greek term "metousiosis" explains, clearly, the Orthodox understanding, teaching/theology, as to what occurs during the Consecretion of the Divine Liturgy Service.  

"...And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ,

And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ,

Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The bread and wine are "changed," into the "essence" of the very Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, but the "substance" remains bread and wine; "a change of essence but not substance."

I accept the Orthodox theological term for the "change" that occurs during the Consecretion as stated and understand it as quite logical.





How do you interpret transubstantiation and which is the logic that you understood?
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #215 on: April 11, 2012, 12:59:09 PM »


If you are looking for logic....you aren't going to find it here.

Tell me, by what logic did Christ change water into wine?

By what logic did 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, multiply to feed over 5,000 people, leaving behind 12 bushels of left overs?

God defies your understanding of logic.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #216 on: April 11, 2012, 01:16:19 PM »


If you are looking for logic....you aren't going to find it here.

Tell me, by what logic did Christ change water into wine?

By what logic did 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, multiply to feed over 5,000 people, leaving behind 12 bushels of left overs?

God defies your understanding of logic.


One of the things that we need to be careful of when saying these kinds of things is that God creates and interacts with His creation.  We speak of the 'laws of the universe' as they are unveiled over time.

Does Orthodoxy teach, did the Holy Fathers teach, that God may contradict Himself?  Do they deny such a thing as a divine logic that may be revealed to us?

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #217 on: April 11, 2012, 01:47:35 PM »


If you are looking for logic....you aren't going to find it here.

Tell me, by what logic did Christ change water into wine?

By what logic did 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, multiply to feed over 5,000 people, leaving behind 12 bushels of left overs?

God defies your understanding of logic.


Do you think God to be ilogical?
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 #218 on: April 11, 2012, 02:01:58 PM »


If you are looking for logic....you aren't going to find it here.

Tell me, by what logic did Christ change water into wine?

By what logic did 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, multiply to feed over 5,000 people, leaving behind 12 bushels of left overs?

God defies your understanding of logic.



Do you think God to be ilogical?

What is the picture of on your avatar?  It is too small to see. 
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 02:02:33 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #219 on: April 11, 2012, 02:09:32 PM »


If you are looking for logic....you aren't going to find it here.

Tell me, by what logic did Christ change water into wine?

By what logic did 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, multiply to feed over 5,000 people, leaving behind 12 bushels of left overs?

God defies your understanding of logic.


Do you think God to be ilogical?

No.  God IS logical....but, we, mere humans, cannot understand His logic.

Do you set yourself on a pedestal equal to God...that you think you should be able to understand everything He has created and done?

Can you explain exactly how the universe was created?

Just because YOU (or I) can't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't real.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 02:10:19 PM by LizaSymonenko » 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
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: 13,624



WWW
« Reply #220 on: April 11, 2012, 02:11:50 PM »


One of the things that we need to be careful of when saying these kinds of things is that God creates and interacts with His creation.  We speak of the 'laws of the universe' as they are unveiled over time.

Does Orthodoxy teach, did the Holy Fathers teach, that God may contradict Himself?  Do they deny such a thing as a divine logic that may be revealed to us?

M.

Key word - "may".     May, at God's will be revealed to some of us.

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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #221 on: April 11, 2012, 02:15:59 PM »


One of the things that we need to be careful of when saying these kinds of things is that God creates and interacts with His creation.  We speak of the 'laws of the universe' as they are unveiled over time.

Does Orthodoxy teach, did the Holy Fathers teach, that God may contradict Himself?  Do they deny such a thing as a divine logic that may be revealed to us?

M.

Key word - "may".     May, at God's will be revealed to some of us.



Is..?  Is revealed to the Church?

Also, does Orthodoxy deny that the existence and reality and some of the nature of God can be discerned through His Creation?
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #222 on: April 11, 2012, 02:18:25 PM »

What about the Divine Logos?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003



« Reply #223 on: April 11, 2012, 05:38:24 PM »

May I suggest that we take a break from this discussion until next week? There has been lots of information and viewpoints presented and it would be good to look at them anew after a decent interval. Wishing you all a blessed Pascha!
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,131



« Reply #224 on: April 11, 2012, 11:40:29 PM »


If you are looking for logic....you aren't going to find it here.

Tell me, by what logic did Christ change water into wine?

By what logic did 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, multiply to feed over 5,000 people, leaving behind 12 bushels of left overs?

God defies your understanding of logic.


Exactly!
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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 0.182 seconds with 71 queries.