OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 08:12:02 AM *
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 8254 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #90 on: February 13, 2012, 02:44:05 PM »

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching.
Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.
Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.
Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #91 on: February 13, 2012, 02:56:10 PM »

Look, it is important to understand the integral and rather beautiful theology in all this.  The Old Testament calls wine the "blood" of the vine.  Therefore it should not surprise us that the Blood of the True Vine is not coarse blood, but rather truly made "drink indeed." 

“O Thou who art pure, when Thou didst see the ripe Vine that Thou didst put forth unhusbanded hanging upon the Cross, Thou didst cry aloud:  O my most sweet Child, Thou hast made the new wine flow, whereby the drunkenness of passion is removed.”    (From Ode 7 Wednesday Matins in Tone 2)   
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #92 on: February 13, 2012, 03:12:05 PM »

St. Gregory Nyssa seems to be able to state it in a very direct fashion:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Thanks, Mary, although I'm still confused. Others talking about heavenly bread and wine wasn't helping me, either. Would that mean that Jesus' body and blood is actually bread and wine, but heavenly? Is it a way to say that Christ is truly present, but it isn't literally flesh and blood?



Exactly!Thank you.That is what i didn`t understood eighter and the person who said that refuses to explain himself which makes me thing that he didn`t understood it eighter.

I'm not sure what eighter is (probably a new Jimmy Buffet song), but I had a good Calculus III professor in college.  He did not bother to try and explain things to people who have the level of understanding of Algebra II because they should not have been in the class anyway.  You cannot explain Calculus III to persons who have not learned Calculus I or II no matter how hard you try.  It is a waste of time, as they find it to be incomprehensible nonsense rather than as a highly valuable pragma.  It is up to them to gain the understanding required and then come back and enroll later.   I suggest you go learn some more background information necessary to understand this and then come back when you are through.     
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #93 on: February 13, 2012, 03:17:03 PM »

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching.
Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.
Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.
Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 
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: 12,688



WWW
« Reply #94 on: February 13, 2012, 03:18:06 PM »



Really what did you get?

I apparently don't "get" your question.  What are you asking? 


You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine.  In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine.  It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer.  It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.  

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically.  They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew.  We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute.  While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings.  In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art".  I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love.  The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard.  In no way was he extraordinary or divine.  I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home.  When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""?  Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity.  That God is the candle.  The flame is God the Father.  The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life.  WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not.  That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #95 on: February 13, 2012, 03:27:24 PM »



Really what did you get?

I apparently don't "get" your question.  What are you asking? 


You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine.  In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine.  It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer.  It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.  

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically.  They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew.  We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute.  While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings.  In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art".  I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love.  The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard.  In no way was he extraordinary or divine.  I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home.  When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""?  Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity.  That God is the candle.  The flame is God the Father.  The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life.  WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not.  That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".



Liza, you hit at the heart of the matter--a Mystery, ultimately, you either believe it or you don't.  We can go reductio ad absurdum with these things because we ultimately have to understand that God is infinite and we are finite.  God's understanding is infinite and ours is finite, albeit on various levels.  Some of us are able to go deeper than others on matters, but ultimately we all have limitations as the finite delving into the infinite.  When we find ourselves facing a lack of understanding on any level, we simply have to accept divinely revealed truth as precisely that. 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #96 on: February 13, 2012, 04:03:11 PM »

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching.
Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.
Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.
Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 
Can you expand on the problem with the term "accidents"? My understanding of accidents is that they are simply the outward appearance and behavior of a thing. Since Orthodox agree that the outward appearance and behavior of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine, I do not understand why they object to one saying the accidents remain after the consecration. BTW, thank you for your thoughtful answers. You really are being charitable about this.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #97 on: February 13, 2012, 04:03:11 PM »



Really what did you get?

I apparently don't "get" your question.  What are you asking? 


You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine.  In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine.  It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer.  It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.  

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically.  They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew.  We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute.  While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings.  In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art".  I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love.  The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard.  In no way was he extraordinary or divine.  I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home.  When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""?  Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity.  That God is the candle.  The flame is God the Father.  The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life.  WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not.  That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".


Well done. Either a person is willing to accept that there are certain things beyond human comprehension or they are not. If there is an infinite God, then he most certainly is beyond human comprehension.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 13, 2012, 04:13:30 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #99 on: February 13, 2012, 04:43:11 PM »

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching.
Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.
Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.
Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 
Can you expand on the problem with the term "accidents"? My understanding of accidents is that they are simply the outward appearance and behavior of a thing. Since Orthodox agree that the outward appearance and behavior of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine, I do not understand why they object to one saying the accidents remain after the consecration. BTW, thank you for your thoughtful answers. You really are being charitable about this.
I want to emphasize that I am not trying to debate you on this point. I am only trying to understand your point.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #100 on: February 13, 2012, 04:55:07 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  

But...this may be irrelevant.  It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition:  "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents.  That is good.  In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species."  That is a good thing from my point of view.  The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."    

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours.  So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.  

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought.  I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does.   On reflection, this may not be fair.   We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.  
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 13, 2012, 05:07:40 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.  

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  


There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes.  I am correct and you have missed the mark.  

It is not the end of the world.  It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth... Wink

ElijahMaria, it is highly inappropriate for you, a ByzCatholic to accuse an Orthodox priest of "missing the mark", especially in the Faith Issues Forum.  
Thank you for your cooperation. - LizaSymonenko FI co-moderator.


« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 06:22:59 PM by LizaSymonenko » Logged

Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #102 on: February 13, 2012, 05:09:03 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  

But...this may be irrelevant.  It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition:  "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents.  That is good.  In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species."  That is a good thing from my point of view.  The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."    

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours.  So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.  

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought.  I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does.   On reflection, this may not be fair.   We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.  

Is the word "remaining" all right if it's understood simply to mean that it has the physical properties of bread and wine, but it is still fully and completely the body and blood of Christ? This is what I always understood transubstantiation to mean. And since I thought it was not Orthodox teaching, I was trying to differentiate the Orthodox position somehow.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #103 on: February 13, 2012, 05:15:42 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  


There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes.  I am correct and you have missed the mark. 

It is not the end of the world.  It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth... Wink

Really, this is what you focused in on in the entire post?  I cannot believe this is your response to my post.  I just cannot.  Of all the things that I said in that post, you ignore the rest and even cut off the first point in mid-point as I stated that one of my points may be irrelevent.  I have never been unfair to you.  This is an insult, Mary, it really is.  Don't be suprised when people fail to extend an olive branch in the future to you when you stomp and spit on it. 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #104 on: February 13, 2012, 05:30:07 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  


There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes.  I am correct and you have missed the mark. 

It is not the end of the world.  It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth... Wink

Really, this is what you focused in on in the entire post?  I cannot believe this is your response to my post.  I just cannot.  Of all the things that I said in that post, you ignore the rest and even cut off the first point in mid-point as I stated that one of my points may be irrelevent.  I have never been unfair to you.  This is an insult, Mary, it really is.  Don't be suprised when people fail to extend an olive branch in the future to you when you stomp and spit on it. 

Please don't be offended.  I never meant this to be an insult to you in any way.  I thought the wink at the end would indicate that I believe this small point to be important but that it does not detract from the fulness of truth upon which we do indeed agree.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 13, 2012, 05:33:13 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  


There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes.  I am correct and you have missed the mark. 

It is not the end of the world.  It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth... Wink

Really, this is what you focused in on in the entire post?  I cannot believe this is your response to my post.  I just cannot.  Of all the things that I said in that post, you ignore the rest and even cut off the first point in mid-point as I stated that one of my points may be irrelevent.  I have never been unfair to you.  This is an insult, Mary, it really is.  Don't be suprised when people fail to extend an olive branch in the future to you when you stomp and spit on it. 

PS: I also thought that you would notice that I purposefully selected quotations from the holy fathers that were similar to your own in elements of language and in spirit.  I thought that would indicate to you that we only disagree on one element of the language in this discussion.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #106 on: February 13, 2012, 05:48:40 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  

But...this may be irrelevant.  It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition:  "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents.  That is good.  In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species."  That is a good thing from my point of view.  The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."    

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours.  So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.  

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought.  I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does.   On reflection, this may not be fair.   We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.  
Thank you Father. Now what exactly is the problem with the word "accident"?
Logged

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

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #107 on: February 14, 2012, 11:09:04 AM »



Really what did you get?

I apparently don't "get" your question.  What are you asking? 


You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine.  In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine.  It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer.  It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.  

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically.  They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew.  We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute.  While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings.  In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art".  I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love.  The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard.  In no way was he extraordinary or divine.  I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home.  When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""?  Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity.  That God is the candle.  The flame is God the Father.  The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life.  WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not.  That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".



You didn`t explain it clear eihter, but you explained it better than FatherHLL.Thank you.I personally can interpret what Christ said when he said he is the true bread from heaven and the true wine.I`m not sure what you or FatherHLL mean by it,as you left it wide open.. And if FatherHLL is level 3 I am level 4.
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: 12,688



WWW
« Reply #108 on: February 14, 2012, 11:19:36 AM »


Level 3 and Level 4 in what?
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 #109 on: February 14, 2012, 11:30:29 AM »

Understanding.

See this :

St. Gregory Nyssa seems to be able to state it in a very direct fashion:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Thanks, Mary, although I'm still confused. Others talking about heavenly bread and wine wasn't helping me, either. Would that mean that Jesus' body and blood is actually bread and wine, but heavenly? Is it a way to say that Christ is truly present, but it isn't literally flesh and blood?



Exactly!Thank you.That is what i didn`t understood eighter and the person who said that refuses to explain himself which makes me thing that he didn`t understood it eighter.

I'm not sure what eighter is (probably a new Jimmy Buffet song), but I had a good Calculus III professor in college.  He did not bother to try and explain things to people who have the level of understanding of Algebra II because they should not have been in the class anyway.  You cannot explain Calculus III to persons who have not learned Calculus I or II no matter how hard you try.  It is a waste of time, as they find it to be incomprehensible nonsense rather than as a highly valuable pragma.  It is up to them to gain the understanding required and then come back and enroll later.   I suggest you go learn some more background information necessary to understand this and then come back when you are through.     
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: February 14, 2012, 08:37:10 PM »

Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #111 on: February 14, 2012, 10:06:57 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  

But...this may be irrelevant.  It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition:  "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents.  That is good.  In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species."  That is a good thing from my point of view.  The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."    

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours.  So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.  

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought.  I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does.   On reflection, this may not be fair.   We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.  
Thank you Father. Now what exactly is the problem with the word "accident"?

Hi Papist.
Basically the "nonessential property or quality" part.  It being Bread is crucial to affirming Christ not just as Son of God, Redeemer, etc, but as the Bread from Heaven, i.e. not just someone who can be touched but as someone who can be ingested (in terms of absorption) and communed fully. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #112 on: February 14, 2012, 10:10:49 PM »

Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #113 on: February 14, 2012, 10:31:37 PM »

Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin.  That is not part of my religious lexicon.  If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #114 on: February 15, 2012, 05:20:20 PM »

Yes.  The last part is a misunderstanding.  We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy.  Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with.  Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it. 

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine.  Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.  

But...this may be irrelevant.  It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition:  "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents.  That is good.  In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species."  That is a good thing from my point of view.  The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."    

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours.  So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.  

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought.  I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does.   On reflection, this may not be fair.   We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.  
Thank you Father. Now what exactly is the problem with the word "accident"?

Hi Papist.
Basically the "nonessential property or quality" part.  It being Bread is crucial to affirming Christ not just as Son of God, Redeemer, etc, but as the Bread from Heaven, i.e. not just someone who can be touched but as someone who can be ingested (in terms of absorption) and communed fully. 
Interesting. I think I might be starting to get a glimpse of the difference. So for the Eastern Orthodox, while it may not be regular bread, it must be a kind of bread, heavenly bread?
But let me continue this line of questioning. Does it have to be "heavenly bread" in the literal sense, meaning that it is like the manna from heaven? Or is the term "heavenly bread" used metaphorically because Christ called himself "bread from heaven"?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #115 on: February 15, 2012, 05:20:20 PM »

Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   
Father, to be honest, I've never really thought about it. My understanding of Transubstantiation is that it is a great mystey, beyond human understanding, in which the substance of the Eucharist, (what it is) becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining the appearance and outward behavior of bread. That being said, there is no way in which the Eucharist can be called bread in the literal sense, because it is not bread in the literal sense. It is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #116 on: February 16, 2012, 01:30:59 AM »

But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

This is an astute observation, often missed by both Orthodox and Catholics.  The Tridentine definition of transubstantiation does not use the philosophical term "accident" but rather "appearance."  I do not doubt that the Tridentine bishops believed the two terms to be synonymous; but it is not unimportant that they chose to use the non-philosophical term in the definition.  They were not seeking to dogmatize Aristotelian metaphysics or any philosophical system.  Nor were the Tridentine bishops seeking to "explain" the mystery of the eucharistic change; rather, they sought to state the mystery in light of Protestant presentations they deemed heterodox.

Interestingly the question what does transubstantiation mean is presently being discussed over at the Monachos forum.  Given that I probably have a better grasp of Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation than most other Orthodox, I wrote a long comment describing what I believe the Catholic Church teaches (reproduced below):

Within the Catholic Church there are many construals of transubstantiation.  This was true at the Council of Trent, and it is certainly the case today.  The principal function of the Tridentine dogma was to exclude Protestant understandings of the Eucharist.  It should not be read as dogmatizing a specific philosophical understanding of substance, accidents, matter, and existence.  That's certainly not how the best Catholic theologians interpret and apply the dogma.  So what is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation trying to say?  I propose the following:  

(1)  By the action of the divine Word, the elements of bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of the risen and glorified Jesus Christ.  Latin theologians employ the category of "substance" to answer the commonsense question "What is that thing?"  What is present on the altar before the consecration?  Bread and wine.  What is present on the altar after the consecration?  Body and Blood.  In other words, a substantial change (transubstantiation) has occurred.

(2)  Because a substantial change has occurred, it is no longer appropriate to literally apply the words "bread" and "wine" to the Holy Gifts.  This is the whole point in saying that the substance of the bread and wine have become the substance of the Body and Blood.  By Latin apprehension, it would be wrong to point to the consecrated Host and say, "That is both bread and Body."  That would be to misdescribe the eucharistic reality.
  
But if a change of substance has occurred, why is it that we only perceive bread and wine?  It is here that Catholic theologians have invoked the distinction between substance and appearances (species):  the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, yet they still appear to be bread and wine.  All of the sensible qualities (accidents) of the bread and wine remain intact.  If a scientist (God forbid!) were to analyze the consecrated elements, he would discover that they are identical to bread and wine in every way.  No chemical, material, or molecular change has occurred.  This is a critical point to recognize, because it is at this point that many people, including many Catholics, get confused.  They think that transubstantiation necessarily entails a chemical-material change in the elements, a change that God miraculously keeps hidden from us.  But this is not what the doctrine says.  This is not what Thomas Aquinas says.  The Lutheran Hermann Sasse has even accused Aquinas of being a semi-Calvinist, because of his insistence that Christ is not locally present in the Sacrament.  But I'm sure that many Catholics over the centuries have believed that the eucharistic transformation involves a material change in the elements.  How else to explain the violence of Catholic/Protestant polemic in the 16th century?  Some Orthodox have also believed this:  see, e.g., Vladimir Moss, "Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist."  

The distinction between substance (what the Sacrament truly is) and appearance (what we perceive) is hardly an invention of the Latin Church.  Consider this passage from St Cyril of Jerusalem:

Quote
These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], "strengthen thine heart," partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."

Or this passage from St Theophylact, commenting on Matt 26:26:  

Quote
"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."
     

Neither author explicitly employs the term "substance," but clearly the notion is implicit.  

How can there be a change of substance without a change of the sensible qualities?  Is this not nonsensical?  That is the great problem posed by the doctrine of transubstantiation--and it is a real problem.  Catholic theologians have struggled with this for centuries.  The literature here is vast, but I commend to everyone this article by Fr Herbert McCabe:  Eucharistic Change.  Also see two blog articles I wrote about McCabe: "When Bread is not Bread" and "The Risen Christ and the Language of God."  McCabe was one of the finest British theologians of the 20th century and a keen student of Thomas Aquinas.  A comparison of the views of McCabe and those of Schmemann, Bulgakov, and Evdokimov might prove particularly illuminating.    

In his book Orthodoxy Paul Evdokimov states that it was only until the 9th and 11th centuries that anyone in the Church, and specifically the Latin Church, seriously posed the questions "what?" and "how?" concerning the Holy Eucharist.  I'm not sure if this is completely accurate; but once these questions are asked, it seems to me that something akin to transubstantiation, i.e., the assertion of the ontological transformation of the bread and wine, is a reasonable response consistent with the faith of the ancient Church.  This would also explain why the Orthodox Church felt free to appropriate the language of transubstantiation when addressing Protestant eucharistic heresies.  Thus Fr Michael Pomzansky in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

Quote
In the Mystery of the Eucharist, at the time when the priest, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the offered Gifts, blesses them with the prayer to God the Father: "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" — the bread and wine actually are changed into the Body and Blood by the coming down of the Holy Spirit. After this moment, although our eyes see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisibly for sensual eyes, this is the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the "forms" of bread and wine.

Thus the sanctified Gifts 1) are not only signs or symbols, reminding the faithful of the redemption, as the reformed Zwingli taught; and likewise, 2) it is not only by His "activity and power" ("dynamically") that Jesus Christ is present in them, as Calvin taught; and finally, 3) He is not present in the meaning only of "penetration," as the Lutherans teach (who recognize the co-presence of Christ "with the bread, under the form of bread, in the bread"); but the sanctified Gifts in the Mystery are changed or (a later term) "transubstantiated" into the true Body and true Blood of Christ, as the Saviour said "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

This truth is expressed in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in the following words: "We believe that in this sacred rite our Lord Jesus Christ is present not symbolically (typikos), not figuratively (eikonikos), not by an abundance of grace, as in the other Mysteries, not by a simple descent, as certain Fathers say about Baptism, and not through a "penetration" of the bread, so that the Divinity of the Word should "enter" into the bread offered for the Eucharist, as the followers of Luther explain it rather awkwardly and unworthily — but truly and actually, so that after the sanctification of the bread and wine, the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual true Body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Father, and is to appear in the clouds of heaven; and the wine is changed and transubstantiated into the actual true Blood of the Lord, which at the time of His suffering on the Cross was shed for the life of the world. Yet again, we believe that after the sanctification of the bread and wine there remains no longer the bread and wine themselves, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance and form of bread and wine."

Or as Evdokimov, himself a fierce critic of transubstantiation, states:  "In summarizing the teaching of the Fathers, beyond any physical conversion, for the eyes of faith after the epiclesis, quite simply there is nothing else on the diskos and in the chalice except the body and blood of Christ."
« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 01:42:38 AM by akimel » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #117 on: February 16, 2012, 01:37:02 AM »

In another post at Monachos I addressed the question whether transubstantiation is non-Orthodox. I reproduce my posting below:

Does transubstantiation explain the eucharistic transformation?  At first glance it may certainly seem to, and no doubt many Latin theologians in the past have thought that it does.  Certainly the many Eastern theologians in the past (and we are talking 500 years here) who have explicitly employed the term "transubstantiation" and the notion of substantial change did not understood it as an explanation or definition of the real presence.  They employed it because they found it a useful way of speaking, especially as a way to distinguish Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist from various heterodox teachings. 

Is transubstantiation alien to Orthodoxy?  Yes, if it is understood as a philosophical explanation of the eucharistic change; but once that qualification is made, it clearly is not alien.  Orthodox bishops, priests, theologians employed the notion of substantial change for centuries.  They unabashedly used the term "transubstantiation."  I have already mentioned the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem, which until fairly recently was highly regarded throughout the Orthodox world.  The 1727 Council of Constantinople went so far as to declare:  "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."  In 1838 the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem were received by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, with some minor modifications: specifically, the statement "the substance of the bread and wine no longer remain" was altered to "the very bread and wine no longer remain" and the phrase "under the accidents of the bread" was omitted.  And as already mentioned in this thread, the term transubstantiation was incorporated into the catechetical teaching of the Russian Church in St Philaret's Longer Catechism, which eventually received the approval of all the Eastern patriarchs.  In 1725 those elected to the office of bishop were required to affirm: 

Quote
I do believe and understand that the Transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper is made, as the Eastern and ancient Russian doctors teach, by the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost at the invocation, when the bishop or priest prays to God the Father in these words, "Make therefore this bread the most honorable body of Thy Christ."

Whether this declaration is still a part of the ordination office I do not know, but it apparently was still a part of the office at the turn of the 20th century.  (For a survey of Eastern reflection and teaching on the Eucharist from the 6th to the 20th century, see Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, chap. 4.)

Even as late as 1961 Panagiotes Trembelas could write in his Dogmatics of the Eastern Church:  "We are in accord in this with the Roman Catholics in believing that in this marvelous transformation, although the exterior phenomena and the accidents of bread and wine remain, all their substance however is changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord."  Eleven years later Archbishop Methodios Fouyas, in his book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, confirmed this judgment:  "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."

Contemporary Orthodox theologians apparently now believe that substantial change is not the best way to speak of the eucharistic transformation (though given that my acquaintance with Orthodox theology is restricted to works written or translated into English, I do not know that this is in fact the case).  I happen to agree. ... I hope to elaborate on my present opinions in a future posting, but let me say this at the moment:  transubstantiation, especially when packaged with the liturgical practices of unleavened bread and infrequent communion (the latter no longer obtaining today), makes it more difficult to speak of the Divine Liturgy as eschatological banquet.  I think this is the heart of Meyendorff's concern.  Or to put it somewhat differently, the Incarnation is the descent of God to the world; the Eucharist is the ascent of the world into heaven.  Because transubstantiation is so easily misunderstood as signifying the material change of the bread and wine, it becomes more difficult to speak of the eschatological nature both of the Divine Liturgy as a whole and specifically of the eucharistic change.  But more on this later.   
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #118 on: February 16, 2012, 03:45:24 PM »

Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   
Father, to be honest, I've never really thought about it. My understanding of Transubstantiation is that it is a great mystey, beyond human understanding, in which the substance of the Eucharist, (what it is) becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining the appearance and outward behavior of bread. That being said, there is no way in which the Eucharist can be called bread in the literal sense, because it is not bread in the literal sense. It is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

This is a discussion that goes way beyond what we can accomplish here.  But let me just give you a few things to think about.  It is not about "literal vs. metaphorical."  All is mysteriological.  Someone asked me about this on another thread.  literal and metaphorical are horribly simplistic ways to view Scripture or anything else of grace.   Mysteriological refers to multivalence, that is, to several realities co-existing at the same time (hence why sacrament is called mysterion). 

Consider the words of St. Nicholas Cavasilas, where he tells us that in Communion  “Christ...gives men the Bread of life, and this Bread is nothing other than Himself...He upholds the wayfarer, and He is the Way; He is at once the inn upon the road and the end of the journey.  When we fight, He fights by our side.  When we dispute, He is the arbiter.  And when we win the victory, He is the prize” (The Life in Christ, 1.1).  God is able to change common food into Christ's Body because He first made His Body to be food for the faithful. 

But you have to understand that in God's mysteriological multivalence, that the realities can all be simultaneously true, that is can be flesh as bread

"...And he was in the midst, not as burning flesh, but as bread baking..."
-the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp
 

With this we can better understand the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons:
“For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the communion and union of the flesh and spirit.  For the bread, whichis produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation (epiclesis) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist—consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.  So also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."    (ANF 1.486)
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #119 on: February 16, 2012, 04:19:04 PM »

Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   
Father, to be honest, I've never really thought about it. My understanding of Transubstantiation is that it is a great mystey, beyond human understanding, in which the substance of the Eucharist, (what it is) becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining the appearance and outward behavior of bread. That being said, there is no way in which the Eucharist can be called bread in the literal sense, because it is not bread in the literal sense. It is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

This is a discussion that goes way beyond what we can accomplish here.  But let me just give you a few things to think about.  It is not about "literal vs. metaphorical."  All is mysteriological.  Someone asked me about this on another thread.  literal and metaphorical are horribly simplistic ways to view Scripture or anything else of grace.   Mysteriological refers to multivalence, that is, to several realities co-existing at the same time (hence why sacrament is called mysterion). 

Consider the words of St. Nicholas Cavasilas, where he tells us that in Communion  “Christ...gives men the Bread of life, and this Bread is nothing other than Himself...He upholds the wayfarer, and He is the Way; He is at once the inn upon the road and the end of the journey.  When we fight, He fights by our side.  When we dispute, He is the arbiter.  And when we win the victory, He is the prize” (The Life in Christ, 1.1).  God is able to change common food into Christ's Body because He first made His Body to be food for the faithful. 

But you have to understand that in God's mysteriological multivalence, that the realities can all be simultaneously true, that is can be flesh as bread

"...And he was in the midst, not as burning flesh, but as bread baking..."
-the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp
 

With this we can better understand the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons:
“For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the communion and union of the flesh and spirit.  For the bread, whichis produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation (epiclesis) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist—consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.  So also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."    (ANF 1.486)

Ok, thank you for explaing this further Father. You have been most helpful and charitable.
 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.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #120 on: February 16, 2012, 05:31:49 PM »

FrHLL, how would the EO Church understand the quotes from the Fathers below, which seem to indicate that the Eucharist is most definitely not bread? How do you understand these passages?
Thanks again.
Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin.  That is not part of my religious lexicon.  If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #121 on: February 17, 2012, 04:39:50 AM »

FrHLL, how would the EO Church understand the quotes from the Fathers below, which seem to indicate that the Eucharist is most definitely not bread? How do you understand these passages?
Thanks again.
Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin.  That is not part of my religious lexicon.  If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.

M.

It is still bread , but not common bread.The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.We consume bread and partake of the divine energies.Therefore I think this is what FatherHLL might have ment when he said 'Bread from Heaven' , in an allegorical way, though...
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
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #122 on: February 17, 2012, 04:53:59 AM »

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.
Fixed.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 04:54:11 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #123 on: February 17, 2012, 05:57:43 AM »

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,
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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #124 on: February 17, 2012, 10:43:36 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?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #125 on: February 17, 2012, 10:54:42 AM »

FrHLL, how would the EO Church understand the quotes from the Fathers below, which seem to indicate that the Eucharist is most definitely not bread? How do you understand these passages?
Thanks again.
Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin.  That is not part of my religious lexicon.  If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.

M.

It is still bread , but not common bread.The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.We consume bread and partake of the divine energies.Therefore I think this is what FatherHLL might have ment when he said 'Bread from Heaven' , in an allegorical way, though...
If it's only "allegorically" bread, then it is not bread literally and we believe the same thing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #126 on: February 17, 2012, 11:26:34 AM »

As already stated, it is no longer earthly bread (the "common bread" that was offered, as seen in my quote from St. Irenaeus above), it has been changed into the deified Body of Christ which is the Heavenly Bread, as seen also in St. Nicholas Cabasilas. 
 

FrHLL, how would the EO Church understand the quotes from the Fathers below, which seem to indicate that the Eucharist is most definitely not bread? How do you understand these passages?
Thanks again.
Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin.  That is not part of my religious lexicon.  If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.

M.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #127 on: February 17, 2012, 11:42:24 AM »

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."
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,034


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #128 on: February 17, 2012, 11:55:08 AM »

As already stated, it is no longer earthly bread (the "common bread" that was offered, as seen in my quote from St. Irenaeus above), it has been changed into the deified Body of Christ which is the Heavenly Bread, as seen also in St. Nicholas Cabasilas. 
 

FrHLL, how would the EO Church understand the quotes from the Fathers below, which seem to indicate that the Eucharist is most definitely not bread? How do you understand these passages?
Thanks again.
Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin.  That is not part of my religious lexicon.  If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.

M.

Father has explained this as I have been taught as well.

It is important to note that many of the seemingly 'diverse' theological postulations or even theologoumena which have developed separately in the east and the west since the great schism may seem on the surface to be 'church dividing issues.' However, this is not always the case. As stated previously the musings of this or that scholar, or even this or that saint, simply may not be reflective of the totality of the teachings of the Church - east or west.

It may be that one idea or the other simply may not have 'crossed over' from east to west or vice versa or may simply represent attempts to express the same, or substantially similar, concepts from different perspectives. Different nuances, languages and pre-conceived notions may preclude an honest examination of what is being discussed.

Now don't get me wrong. There are church dividing issues which are out there and remain unresolved. The institution of the modern papacy and the proper role of the Pope in a 'universal' church is, of course, the most significant.

Within Orthodoxy itself we have similar divisions of opinion over some teachings which are not universally accepted as dogma or doctrine, but neither are they heretical teachings or in grave error. The oft-debated topic of 'Toll Houses' comes to mind.
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #129 on: February 17, 2012, 11:59:43 AM »

FrHLL, how would the EO Church understand the quotes from the Fathers below, which seem to indicate that the Eucharist is most definitely not bread? How do you understand these passages?
Thanks again.
Dear FatherHLL

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error.  Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error.  Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look.  Good chance I won't do that again... Smiley

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another.  Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem.  But I did bring up a point that is not addressed.  Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma?  Trent purposely avoided it.  As I pointed out, this is a positive thing.   It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma.  If not, then I certainly did not sin.  But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring.  But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.   

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin.  That is not part of my religious lexicon.  If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.

M.

It is still bread , but not common bread.The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.We consume bread and partake of the divine energies.Therefore I think this is what FatherHLL might have ment when he said 'Bread from Heaven' , in an allegorical way, though...
If it's only "allegorically" bread, then it is not bread literally and we believe the same thing.

No.It is poetically bread from heaven.. the origin of the bread is earthly but the bread receives something from above "divine energies"..

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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #130 on: February 17, 2012, 12:09:23 PM »

No.It is poetically bread from heaven.. the origin of the bread is earthly but the bread receives something from above "divine energies"..
Poetically? What do you mean by that word?
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #131 on: February 17, 2012, 12:10:38 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
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 #132 on: February 17, 2012, 12:11:20 PM »

No.It is poetically bread from heaven.. the origin of the bread is earthly but the bread receives something from above "divine energies"..
Poetically? What do you mean by that word?

figure of speach.
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 #133 on: February 17, 2012, 12:21:09 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..

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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #134 on: February 17, 2012, 12:24:18 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?
Logged
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 0.252 seconds with 71 queries.