OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 04:41:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Transubstantation?  (Read 6064 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: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #270 on: October 30, 2012, 04:26:01 PM »

In Christ,
Achronos
[/quote]
That is not what you said last night.
[/quote]
Are we going to approach last night apophatically?  Wink

Psst, I know you have me confused with someone else. Wink
[/quote]
Sorry, your avatar had my head all confused. I was refering to Todd.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #271 on: October 30, 2012, 04:56:02 PM »

For reasons I can't follow, he seems to want to know if I'm a Severian or not.....

Not at all. I want to know if your primary way of describing Christ is by confessing Him to be one incarnate nature and out if two natures, or if you prefer to to confess in two natures, two energies, etc. Also I would like to know if you primarily confess Christ to be homoousion with the Father or homoiousion with the Father without variation.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 301


« Reply #272 on: October 30, 2012, 04:57:31 PM »

What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #273 on: October 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM »

What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

Don't you see what he's trying to say?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 05:04:33 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 301


« Reply #274 on: October 30, 2012, 05:06:24 PM »

Honestly, I don't....
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #275 on: October 30, 2012, 05:07:32 PM »

It's just one more way of avoiding the historical and Patristic points that Samn raised.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #276 on: October 30, 2012, 05:08:06 PM »

Honestly, I don't....

I guess that he's saying that people shouldn't make a big fuss on issues about semantics.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #277 on: October 30, 2012, 05:08:55 PM »

What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

It has nothing to do with the Orthodoxy of your beliefs, nor is it a trick question. All of the formulae I presented are Orthodox in content, but I would like to know if you use some of them as a primary mode of confession over the others. I suspect strongly, for example, that you, like most Chalcedonian Orthodox acknowledge the formula out of two natures as well as one incarnate nature of the Word of God, but primarily use the formula in two natures for your Christological thought. Similarly, I suspect you probably use the formula homoousion with the Father exclusively. Is this not the case?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 301


« Reply #278 on: October 30, 2012, 05:11:11 PM »

I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #279 on: October 30, 2012, 05:13:19 PM »

I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?

Read the post above you.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 301


« Reply #280 on: October 30, 2012, 05:23:38 PM »

But I never said that it's not possible to express the same thing in different ways-- very early on I made a point of stating that this is possible. Cavaradossi is simply trying to avoid engaging with the reasons I've given for why Orthodox have to accept the validity of the concept of transubstantiation and my warning about the very real danger in dismissing something for being 'too philosophical'.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 05:24:20 PM by Samn! » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #281 on: October 30, 2012, 05:24:32 PM »

I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?

My question is quite simple, despite the acknowledgement that both out of two natures and one incarnate nature of the Word of God are Orthodox confessions when understood properly, is it not accurate to say that the most mature Chalcedonian Orthodox thought (such as the dyoenergism and dyotheletism of the Sixth Council) bases itself more upon 'in two natures' than it does either one 'one incarnate nature of the Word of God' or 'out of two natures'? Similarly, is it not safe to say that Orthodox Triadology is completely based on the formula, 'homoousion with the Father', rather than the formula (equally Orthodox in its intent according to St. Basil), 'homoiousion with the Father without variation'?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 301


« Reply #282 on: October 30, 2012, 05:26:36 PM »

Fair enough, more or less. But get to your point.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #283 on: October 30, 2012, 05:56:40 PM »

Fair enough, more or less. But get to your point.

Just because a certain terminology has been used by certain fathers does not mean that we are beholden to continue using it. I personally am fine with confessions like the confession of Dositheos, where transubstantiation is used with heavy qualification. But if a term needs to be qualified so much, perhaps it is better that it not be used at all, especially since we can plainly make a confession of what we believe about the Eucharist without it. I am therefore, not too bothered when people object to the use of the term.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 301


« Reply #284 on: October 30, 2012, 06:17:44 PM »

The nature of one's objections here is the important thing. For example, 'one incarnate nature' is only acceptable if we understand it to mean in fact 'one subject with both human and divine natures'. This is dealt with in the canons of the 5th Ecumenical council. If it is understood to mean 'one subject out of two subjects', then it is illegitimate. If it is understood to mean 'one universal out of two universals' this is also illegitimate. Likewise, criticism of Chalcedon that reads 'in two natures' as 'in two subjects' is a valid criticism of Chalcedon that had to be addressed. This is why further precision of language was demanded by each council. Someone who continues to use 'one nature' language after nature is explained by the Councils as being a universal and hypostasis as being a particular falls under the councils' anathemas. That's why we can read Cyrill's 'one nature' language as the standard of Orthodoxy but must condemn Severus. That said, I have no desire to go down a Christological rabbit-hole, which this thread is not about. I'm just using it as an illustration and anyone who wants to discuss that stuff should start their own thread.

 Rather, my point is that many of the criticisms of transubstantiation are either invalid or highly, highly problematic-- the objection out of anti-Latin prejudice, the objection out of acceptance of the Lutheran or other Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, and the objection out of a fear of 'philosophy'.  It may be that there are objections to transubstantiation that do not fall into this list, however, none of them that I have seen are objections to the mainstream Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. For example, if someone wants to reject transubstantiation because they read it as some kind of metaphysical mechanism and not a gloss of 'become', then this is a valid criticism insofar as anyone who sees transubstantiation as a mechanism is in fact committing an error. But, it's a bit of a straw man, as this is not the normal understanding of the term...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 06:26:04 PM by Samn! » Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #285 on: October 30, 2012, 06:55:12 PM »

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

The nature of one's objections here is the important thing. For example, 'one incarnate nature' is only acceptable if we understand it to mean in fact 'one subject with both human and divine natures'. This is dealt with in the canons of the 5th Ecumenical council. If it is understood to mean 'one subject out of two subjects', then it is illegitimate. If it is understood to mean 'one universal out of two universals' this is also illegitimate. Likewise, criticism of Chalcedon that reads 'in two natures' as 'in two subjects' is a valid criticism of Chalcedon that had to be addressed. This is why further precision of language was demanded by each council. Someone who continues to use 'one nature' language after nature is explained by the Councils as being a universal and hypostasis as being a particular falls under the councils' anathemas. That's why we can read Cyrill's 'one nature' language as the standard of Orthodoxy but must condemn Severus. That said, I have no desire to go down a Christological rabbit-hole, which this thread is not about. I'm just using it as an illustration and anyone who wants to discuss that stuff should start their own thread.

 Rather, my point is that many of the criticisms of transubstantiation are either invalid or highly, highly problematic-- the objection out of anti-Latin prejudice, the objection out of acceptance of the Lutheran or other Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, and the objection out of a fear of 'philosophy'.  It may be that there are objections to transubstantiation that do not fall into this list, however, none of them that I have seen are objections to the mainstream Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. For example, if someone wants to reject transubstantiation because they read it as some kind of metaphysical mechanism and not a gloss of 'become', then this is a valid criticism insofar as anyone who sees transubstantiation as a mechanism is in fact committing an error. But, it's a bit of a straw man, as this is not the normal understanding of the term...



I'm just popping in to say careful there  angel

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #286 on: October 31, 2012, 05:42:21 PM »

What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 05:43:52 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #287 on: October 31, 2012, 05:53:30 PM »

What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?

The way the Fathers were interpreted were wrong and actually puts the person in the same problem he accused the Catholics of.
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #288 on: October 31, 2012, 06:00:20 PM »

What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?

The way the Fathers were interpreted were wrong and actually puts the person in the same problem he accused the Catholics of.
That's what I was thinking.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 06:01:38 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 301


« Reply #289 on: October 31, 2012, 06:05:03 PM »

Obviously, I'm with Choy here...... The Protestant writer is also gaming things a bit too by only discussing patristic citations that he thinks he can twist into his point of view. I'd like to see what he would do with the writings of St Cyril about the Eucharist, for example.... To give one citation among many from him on this topic, here's from his commentary on Matthew:

"Placing the aforementioned things [i.e. the bread and wine] in the sight of God, we earnestly ask that they be remodeled for us into a spiritual blessing, that having partaken of these things, we may be sanctified in body and soul. But [Christ] said, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my blood,' so that you may not hold that these visible things are a type; rather, in some ineffable way these things put out on the table are truly changed by God, into the body and blood of Christ."
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #290 on: October 31, 2012, 07:22:54 PM »

Also it seems that he is going into the same error that most Protestants or anti-Christians go into, that is putting as much weight on comments made by some random person against comments by those who were recognized as teachers of the true faith.  Like when he mentioned of this monk who believed in spiritual presence rather than real presence.  I bet you can find religious people today who believe the same thing, doesn't mean the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.  In fact, the Catholic Church teaches against things like abortions and contraception, and yet you have nuns who support either or both issues.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #291 on: June 20, 2013, 03:47:01 AM »

Samn,

Thanks for being patient in your interaction with others on this forum. You educated me on this issue! Thanks again!
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  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 0.088 seconds with 50 queries.