Topic: Do EO's partake of the Body and Blood and also Bread and Wine?

[Irish Hermit]

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed).  I hope this helps

I would not say that the Holy Gifts are only the energies of the God-Man and not His full and utter divinity.  I may be wrong but I would fiercely resist that idea.

,

Are there any scholarly/theological books or essays written by Orthodox Christians or the Church Fathers that discuss this topic?

Cudgelling my over-cudgelled brains, I cannot think of any.   I cannot imagine that any Church Father would not see the Holy Gifts as the full and complete Jesus Christ, the same as He was, true God and true man, walking the hills of Palestine, and appearing to the Apostles after His resurrection.

[peteprint]

This is an interesting quote from St. Irenaeus:

"For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection."

-Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

[peteprint]

St. Athanasius:

"...Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected."

Sermon to the Newly Baptized ante 373 A.D.

[peteprint]

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

"Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh."

The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]

As you have stated Father Ambrose, there are many ways in which the Fathers have attempted to describe the mystery.  There is no consensus, especially regarding consubstantiation.   

[Father H]

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

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways.  We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic.  However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.  

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox.  I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration.  I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction.  That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine.  I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin  scholastic sense.

stay  blessed,
habte selassie

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed).  I hope this helps

I would not say that the Holy Gifts are only the energies of the God-Man and not His full and utter divinity.  I may be wrong but I would fiercely resist that idea.

Who suggested that idea? 

[Alpo]

Christ, the Archetype of the perfected man, never laughed, there being no evidence in Scripture of His having had a sense of humor.
- Abp. Chrysostom of Etna

Don't you find that illogical?

That's intended as a joke and parody of overly pious religious people with no sense of humor. I thought the quote is so absurd that it's self-evident. Also, the quote is taken intentionally out of context. I and His Grace take a lot more positive view on humor.

Here's the whole article of His Grace:

A Lenten Commentary on Humor, Laughter, and Frivolity

[Maria]

Christ, the Archetype of the perfected man, never laughed, there being no evidence in Scripture of His having had a sense of humor.
- Abp. Chrysostom of Etna

Don't you find that illogical?

That's intended as a joke and parody of overly pious religious people with no sense of humor. I thought the quote is so absurd that it's self-evident. Also, the quote is taken intentionally out of context. I and His Grace take a lot more positive view on humor.

Here's the whole article of His Grace:

A Lenten Commentary on Humor, Laughter, and Frivolity

With increasing devotion to the Laughing Christ by charismatics, I think that virtue lies in the middle, not in the extremes.
When I left Roman Catholicism in the early 1990's, many Catholic priests and bishops used humor inappropriately in their sermons.
Some had to begin their sermons with jokes. It got to be tiresome.

Back on topic: I want to thank those for quoting the Church Fathers on the Holy Eucharist.
Being raised a Catholic, and having studied about the accidents of Bread and Wine, I am grateful for the clarification given by the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy.

[Alpo]

While Fathers' seem to conflict each other on the issue, is there any sort of gut feeling consensus nowadays? Do the present day Orthodox tend to look some interpretation more favorably than others?

[LBK]

While Fathers' seem to conflict each other on the issue, is there any sort of gut feeling consensus nowadays? Do the present day Orthodox tend to look some interpretation more favorably than others?

When in doubt, look at the liturgical hymnography and prayers of the Church. These represent and proclaim what the Church teaches. Most good prayer books have the Pre- and Post-Communion Prayers in them; and a look at the hymns and prayers of the Divine Liturgy, including those intoned by the priest in the altar will give you the answers.

[Alpo]

While Fathers' seem to conflict each other on the issue, is there any sort of gut feeling consensus nowadays? Do the present day Orthodox tend to look some interpretation more favorably than others?

When in doubt, look at the liturgical hymnography and prayers of the Church. These represent and proclaim what the Church teaches. Most good prayer books have the Pre- and Post-Communion Prayers in them; and a look at the hymns and prayers of the Divine Liturgy, including those intoned by the priest in the altar will give you the answers.

I don't think the hymnography will give answer to this question. Our liturgies most certainly assure that bread and wine are turned into Body and Blood but beyond that they are fairly agnostic. We don't sing about transsubstantation or consubstantation during services.

[LBK]

I don't think the hymnography will give answer to this question. Our liturgies most certainly assure that bread and wine are turned into Body and Blood but beyond that they are fairly agnostic. We don't sing about transsubstantation or consubstantation during services.

Which is my point. 

We know that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood. Anything else is speculation, and we should accept that certain things of God will remain mysteries forever, beyond the capacity of mere human minds. If our greatest saints and Fathers couldn't fully explain it, then we should be content with this.

[elijahmaria]

I don't think the hymnography will give answer to this question. Our liturgies most certainly assure that bread and wine are turned into Body and Blood but beyond that they are fairly agnostic. We don't sing about transsubstantation or consubstantation during services.

Which is my point. 

We know that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood. Anything else is speculation, ....

Does this include the speculation that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine in substance?

[Azul]

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

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways.  We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic.  However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. 

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox.  I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration.  I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction.  That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine.  I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin  scholastic sense.

stay  blessed,
habte selassie

I think that the EO believes that through the Holy Eucharist we partake of the divine energies.

[Azul]

If we partake of the Body and Blood and also Bread and Wine is that not Christ joining/adding himself up to the Bread and Wine?If this is the case can we talk of a change?

[Father H]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

[Azul]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

why don`t you translate it than?

[elijahmaria]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching. 

If it is not common wine then what is it?  Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

M.

[Father H]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven. 

[Father H]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.  

If it is not common wine then what is it?  Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good.  But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.  

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance?  It is right there.  Did you miss it?  It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful.  However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.  

[elijahmaria]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.  

If it is not common wine then what is it?  Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good.  But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.  

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance?  It is right there.  Did you miss it?  It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful.  However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.  

As long as we can say that it still looks and tastes like bread and still looks and tastes like wine, we are talking about the same thing.

Then we can hope we speak of the same thing when we speak of the substantial divinity come down as food from heaven.

[PeterTheAleut]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.  

If it is not common wine then what is it?  Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good.  But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.  

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance?  It is right there.  Did you miss it?  It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful.  However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.  

As long as we can say that it still looks and tastes like bread and still looks and tastes like wine, we are talking about the same thing.

Then we can hope we speak of the same thing when we speak of the substantial divinity come down as food from heaven.

Mary, are you posting here on FI to correct a misconception about your Catholic faith, or are you posting here for a different reason?

[elijahmaria]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.  

If it is not common wine then what is it?  Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good.  But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.  

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance?  It is right there.  Did you miss it?  It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful.  However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.  

As long as we can say that it still looks and tastes like bread and still looks and tastes like wine, we are talking about the same thing.

Then we can hope we speak of the same thing when we speak of the substantial divinity come down as food from heaven.

Mary, are you posting here on FI to correct a misconception about your Catholic faith, or are you posting here for a different reason?

I post here for two reasons.  One to correct a perceived error.  That is what I am doing this time.

In the past I have posted using sources from within the Orthodox tradition to try to get clarification on a matter that is of interest to me.

I am rarely punished for the former but now and then I am punished for the latter:  even though I make no comparison nor do I use any but Orthodox sources.

I gave up trying to figure out what makes the hammer fall.  My intentions on this area of the Forum are NEVER to do comparisons:  I only ever seek to correct OR explore inside the whole of the Orthodox tradition...to the best of my ability and the abilities of my correspondents here.

Mary

PS: I am some grateful to you for asking.

[mike]

You also sometimes try to undermine the dominant belief among the Orthodox with presenting proofs from the Orthodox sources that argue for beliefs foreign to mainstream Orthodoxy (and similar to yours).

That Romanian Bishop who took your eucharist was an Orthodox source but his beliefs were (are?) far from Orthodox.

End of digressions. Get back to the topic.

We can continue this OT via PM if you'd like to (I wouldn't ).

[Azul]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven. 

explain yourself.

[Father H]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven. 

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough. 

[Azul]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven. 

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough. 

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

[Father H]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.   

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven. 

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough. 

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol.  Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it.   
My time is valuable and I won't waste it.  There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white.  I don't see how you can possibly not understand.     

[Ortho_cat]

i think its appropriate to say as that the common bread and wine is changed into heavenly bread and wine, i.e. the body and blood of Christ.

[Azul]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.  

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough.  

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol.  Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it.  
My time is valuable and I won't waste it.  There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white.  I don't see how you can possibly not understand.    

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying  them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

[Azul]

i think its appropriate to say as that the common bread and wine is changed into heavenly bread and wine, i.e. the body and blood of Christ.

And what is that supposed to mean?How does that happen?Poetically?I don`t need poetries but mere meanings of how things occure.

[elijahmaria]

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.

[elijahmaria]

There is then also the very famous passage from St. Cyril of Jerusalem from his Mystagogy:

"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.

[LizaSymonenko]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.  

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough.  

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol.  Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it.  
My time is valuable and I won't waste it.  There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white.  I don't see how you can possibly not understand.    

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying  them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding.  FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood.  Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.  

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class.  I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class.  I however, never did.  It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

[Azul]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.  

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough.  

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol.  Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it.  
My time is valuable and I won't waste it.  There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white.  I don't see how you can possibly not understand.    

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying  them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding.  FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood.  Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.  

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class.  I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class.  I however, never did.  It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

Really what did you get?

[Delphine]

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?

I asked my Orthodox priest, "If not by transubstantiation, then how does it become Christ's body and blood?" He answered, "Grace." Okay... But what does that mean? Is it enough to say Christ is truly present, or is there something more?

[Azul]

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.

[LizaSymonenko]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.  

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough.  

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol.  Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it.  
My time is valuable and I won't waste it.  There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white.  I don't see how you can possibly not understand.    

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying  them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding.  FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood.  Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.  

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class.  I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class.  I however, never did.  It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

Really what did you get?

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

[Delphine]

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.   

I really want to understand what this means. Would it be right to say it's not common bread because Christ is truly present, but it's not flesh, either? But this is just me stabbing in the dark. Maybe it's my background, but I'm trying not to make any assumptions and so it all feels very vague to me.

[elijahmaria]

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?

I asked my Orthodox priest, "If not by transubstantiation, then how does it become Christ's body and blood?" He answered, "Grace." Okay... But what does that mean? Is it enough to say Christ is truly present, or is there something more?

I think St. Justin Martyr may say it in a way that is most clear:

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155

[Papist]

Emmm...

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

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

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

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

Substance means the essential part of a thing that makes it what it is...in other words, its essence.

Actually, substance means "the thing that is", which is not the same as essence, which means "what a thing is". Now the concept of substance, or the thing that is, includes the concept of essence, or what a thing is, but substance is not identical with essence. Essence is part of what a substance is.

[Papist]

I have agree with Maria. To say that the substance of the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents remain, is not to describe how this change occurs in all of its details. All we are saying is the obvious. It becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but looks like bread and wine. How God accomplishes this is beyond human understanding. In a like manner, how God created the heavens and the earth is beyond human comprehension. But we can still say that it happened.

[Azul]

^I have already answered this question:

Look, 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.  His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed.  The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology.  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.  

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what?  Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed.   The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.  

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand.  I can live with that.  I have already explained myself enough.  

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol.  Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it.  
My time is valuable and I won't waste it.  There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white.  I don't see how you can possibly not understand.    

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying  them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding.  FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood.  Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.  

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class.  I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class.  I however, never did.  It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

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.

[elijahmaria]

I have agree with Maria. To say that the substance of the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents remain, is not to describe how this change occurs in all of its details. All we are saying is the obvious. It becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but looks like bread and wine. How God accomplishes this is beyond human understanding. In a like manner, how God created the heavens and the earth is beyond human comprehension. But we can still say that it happened.

We can also say that within the laws of creation, things are not always what they seem to be.  And in that analogous sense we can understand that bread and wine, after the prayers of consecration, are also not what they seem to be as well.

We can parse those things out to the best of our ability in scientific or philosophic terms, or we can simply accept that appearance and perceptions are axiomatically fallible, and things are not always what they seem to be.

In both the case of science and of simple acceptance, we are talking about an exercise of faith since the essence of things can never be known in their absolute and fundamental existence.

As long as we, in our science and philosophy, are making "stuff" out of other "stuff" we are not in a position to know the essence of any of the "stuff" that we make.

At the moment when we find that we can make "stuff" out of absolutely nothing at all...well then...we will know that the game has changed...

M.

[witega]

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.   

I really want to understand what this means. Would it be right to say it's not common bread because Christ is truly present, but it's not flesh, either? But this is just me stabbing in the dark. Maybe it's my background, but I'm trying not to make any assumptions and so it all feels very vague to me.

No, it is flesh. From the pre-communion prayers, "I believe this is truly Thy most pure Body and this is truly Thine own precious blood". From practical experience we know it doesn't look like the Body and Blood, but regardless of appearances it is.

It seems that where some people are stumbling is that Orthodoxy is fine with not going any further than this. Papist makes a very good point in analogizing it to Creation. "I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." I have absolutely no clue *how* He did so, nor do I particularly care. The fact is enough. And Orthodoxy takes the same attitude to the  Eucharist. The "how" has not been revealed, and is probably not comprehensible to us even if it was. But it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Father H]

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.   

I really want to understand what this means. Would it be right to say it's not common bread because Christ is truly present, but it's not flesh, either? But this is just me stabbing in the dark. Maybe it's my background, but I'm trying not to make any assumptions and so it all feels very vague to me.

No, it is truly His flesh.  He said so.  This is why John 6 becomes so important.   He is the Bread from heaven, and thus it should not surprise us that His Body as given in Communion is Bread.   As the cherubic hymn for holy saturday makes clear, He comes in the flesh, not as when He walked on earth, but rather "comes...to be given as food (bread) for the faithful."  His flesh is truly food--Bread.   The Bread after epiklesis is no longer earthly food, but is the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ substantially and fully.  It is truly His Body in the form of food (bread), not because "accidents" remain, but because He is the Bread from Heaven and gives His Flesh as Food for the faithful.