Topic: A Question For Catholics: Sacraments and "Intent"

[augustin717]

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

[NicholasMyra]

I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

Yes, but he was a Peter Mogilan Gorilla.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

But in this case, I don't think the Roman Catholics would really even say that intent matters. Suppose that the priest has lost his faith and he celebrates a Mass. Will God not make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? To say that the Mass would be invalid seems awfully close to donatism, where the sinfulness of the minister affects the sacraments performed by him.

I have another question that may seem bizarre (especially since the thread has already linked Catholicism with a propensity for "magical spells"!)

Catholicism maintains/maintained that the phenomenon of a "Black Mass" is possible precisely for these sorts of reasons - that a consecrated priest, by virtue of his consecration and by following the rubrics, can still effect the transubstantiation (as defined dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council) of bread and wine into body and blood. According to a Catholic understanding, the Eucharist he confects would be illicit, but not invalid.

Now, is such a thing possible in the Orthodox world-view - I would imagine not. Why? Is there any comparable understanding of a licit/illicit, valid/invalid dichotomy in liturgical celebration?

I've chosen a very extreme example, hopefully it didn't offend anybody.

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

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

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

Dositheos II Notarius of Jerusalem was certainly correct in rejecting the heresy of Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople as set forth in his Confession of Faith (1629), that is, his agreement in the doctrines of predestination and justification by faith alone. However, I am not familiar with anything he may have written that would be contrary to what OrthoNoob wrote.

[elijahmaria]

I'm stuck...I can't give you an example.  And I do not know enough about the Anglican situation to comment without looking again and asking, though I don't mean to insult by saying so.  I do believe that the Church gives schismatics and heretics room to change their minds before the entire extra-ecclesial enterprise is removed from succession....So I don't know that it happens in one great declarative...as you ask to see here.

M.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.  This is not just "a bone to pick" but rather from what I personally have learned from the history of the Church.  I don't claim I know everything, I only know a couple of examples, that is why I ask for you to come up with an example.  If there is evidence contrary to what my current opinion is on the matter, then I will accept my fault and learn from it.  But the problem is I haven't seen any case where a priest or bishop is told that they cannot perform the Sacraments validly after they left the Church for whatever reason based on the intent.

I think the only 2 Sacraments a priest or bishop outside of the Catholic Church cannot perform validly is confession and marriage.  Marriages have to be "witnessed" by someone designated by the Church to witness on her behalf.  So a layperson (extraordinary circumstance) can witness validly but a priest who has left the Church cannot because he does not have the blessing of the Church to witness.  Same for confession as faculties are required for a priest to validly absolve.  So a priest who leaves the Church does not take the faculties with him, but the Church can, by law, supply the faculties in emergency situations (a defrocked priest can hear confessions if the penitent is in danger of death).

But the other 5 has no such restrictions as long as the proper matter, form and intent is used.

One thing that I must go back and correct about this is that you have said that a bishop who has left the Church cannot validly consecrate without the approval of the pope.   The pope has the right to reject the ordained bishops but the ordinations themselves are indeed valid.

[OrthoNoob]

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.

[NicholasMyra]

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.

Hast thou not heard of the Western Captivity and the Mogila gorilla for sale?

Decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheos, Statement of the Council of Jerusalem 1672

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes* for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different from it; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics. But necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress, the Catholic Church of Christ rejects and anathematises.

[choy]

One thing that I must go back and correct about this is that you have said that a bishop who has left the Church cannot validly consecrate without the approval of the pope.   The pope has the right to reject the ordained bishops but the ordinations themselves are indeed valid.

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

[elijahmaria]

One thing that I must go back and correct about this is that you have said that a bishop who has left the Church cannot validly consecrate without the approval of the pope.   The pope has the right to reject the ordained bishops but the ordinations themselves are indeed valid.

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never questioned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

Intent is always specific to the act.  Any validly ordained bishop can ordain men to the presbyterate and to the episcopate.  It is a sacramental power inherent to his own ordination. 

He may need permission to ordain licitly so as to be a part of and in good standing with the Catholic episcopacy and in communion with the papal Church,  but he needs no one's permission to ordain validly.

[augustin717]

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.

Not one but many. Nick showed you one.

[Peter J]

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

[elijahmaria]

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

I will gamble and presume that you are speaking of the Chinese bishops who are not recognized by the Vatican...

In all of those instances they are formally referred to as illicit ordinations.  No one yet, with the authority to do so, has indicated that they are invalid.

M.

[OrthoNoob]

Aren't the words of consecration necessary for the bread and wine to be consecrated? If the intrinsic sense of the words is added to or taken away from, the consecration does not occur, so presumably, something is made active by the priest's vocalisation, united to his intent, through the grace of God?

I don't know about "intent." That's partially the point of this thread. But otherwise I would agree.

There must be a moment where bread and wine become body and blood. When and how do the Orthodox believe that transubstantiation takes place?

The Orthodox Church does not teach any dogmatic understanding of how the Real Presence works; all She says for sure is that the bread and wine, after the epiclesis, are the real, true, corporeal, local, Body and Blood of Christ. So we don't believe in transubtantiation per se (at least not as more than a theologoumenon.)

As for when precisely the transformation occurs, it is completed at the epiclesis, but +Met. KALLISTOS says it can be considered to have begun even at the Great Entrance.

I find in encouraging and touching you already speak in the name of the orthodox church. I however know a chap Dositheos  Nottaras who used to be some big shot in Jerusalem and he disagrees with your opinions

My opinions about transubstantiation? I have never before heard an Orthodox Christian teach transubstantiation as a dogma. If one has, please show me.

Not one but many. Nick showed you one.

I see that, and I stand corrected.

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

[Peter J]

I did say that the validity of those ordinations were never querstionned.  Which is why I am dismayed.  If the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope says his permission is needed to consecrate into the episcopacy, how were those ordinations valid if it did not have the intentions of the Pope (and therefore the Church)?  So what is "intent" really?

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

I will gamble and presume that you are speaking of the Chinese bishops who are not recognized by the Vatican...

In all of those instances they are formally referred to as illicit ordinations.  No one yet, with the authority to do so, has indicated that they are invalid.

M.

There wasn't anything in my post about Chinese bishops.

[choy]

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

Isn't it the same thing?  If the Pope speaks for the Church, therefore the intent of the Church is the intent of the Pope (and vice versa).  So how can one "do as the Church intends when performing the Sacrament," when the performance of the Sacrament is against the intent of the one who speaks in behalf of the Church?

[choy]

I will gamble and presume that you are speaking of the Chinese bishops who are not recognized by the Vatican...

In all of those instances they are formally referred to as illicit ordinations.  No one yet, with the authority to do so, has indicated that they are invalid.

M.

There wasn't anything in my post about Chinese bishops.

It could be anyone, Chinese bishops, SSPX, Old Catholic bishops giving away ordinations.  That in fact is the saddest part of this debacle, the Catholic Church has confirmed a few decades ago that the Old Catholics have valid ordination.  And today they're giving away ordinations like freebies in a convention.  They've tried to ordained the Roman Catholic womenpriests, I've seen a list male "bishops" who claim Apostolic Succession through the Old Catholics.  I've come across the Facebook profile of one from the Charismatic Catholic Church who is just another rogue group who claims Apostolic Succession through the Old Catholics.

I personally think this is sad.

[Peter J]

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

Isn't it the same thing? 

No. The ordinations happened, and the SSPX bishops suffered the consequence of being excommunicated. To me it seems pretty straightforward.

[elijahmaria]

But there's a difference between saying "Don't consecrate any bishops without my permission" and saying "If you try to consecrate any bishops without my permission, it won't be a real consecration."

Isn't it the same thing?  If the Pope speaks for the Church, therefore the intent of the Church is the intent of the Pope (and vice versa).  So how can one "do as the Church intends when performing the Sacrament," when the performance of the Sacrament is against the intent of the one who speaks in behalf of the Church?

Intent is not a generic term.  Each intent is specific to the sacrament.  If a bishop intends what the Church intends as an episcopal consecration or a presbyteral consecration then you have a valid consecration.

What you are talking about and that other fellow is referring to is an illicit consecration....

You cannot simply say "Oh...they are outside, so they are invalid because they reject the Church or the pope."  No.  They are illicit but there's nothing that indicates that they do not intend to consecrate bishops and priests, and in the same way as the Church that they have left behind or rejected for some reason.  That reason has nothing to do with the fact that they understand consecration the same way as the Church that they left behind.

[choy]

No. The ordinations happened, and the SSPX bishops suffered the consequence of being excommunicated. To me it seems pretty straightforward.

Well, unfortunately it is.  I know what the Church teaches, but I don't get why one who willfully defied the Pope still is able to ordain bishops.

[choy]

Intent is not a generic term.  Each intent is specific to the sacrament.  If a bishop intends what the Church intends as an episcopal consecration or a presbyteral consecration then you have a valid consecration.

What you are talking about and that other fellow is referring to is an illicit consecration....

You cannot simply say "Oh...they are outside, so they are invalid because they reject the Church or the pope."  No.  They are illicit but there's nothing that indicates that they do not intend to consecrate bishops and priests, and in the same way as the Church that they have left behind or rejected for some reason.  That reason has nothing to do with the fact that they understand consecration the same way as the Church that they left behind.

But that is my question, if the intent of the Church through the Pope is that those priests are not to be ordained Bishops without his permission, then where did the intent that validated the episcopal consecration come from?

[NicholasMyra]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

[Peter J]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

Which council are we talking about?

[OrthoNoob]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

[Cyrillic]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

Which council are we talking about?

Council of Jerusalem 1672

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Peter J]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

Which council are we talking about?

Council of Jerusalem 1672

Thanks. I didn't feel like going back and re-reading the earlier part of the discussion.

[soderquj]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

[Cyrillic]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

[soderquj]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.

[Cyrillic]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.

Oh sorry. I'm not a native speaker of English. Never even set foot in an anglophone country. Clarified is indeed the verb I should have used.

[soderquj]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.

Oh sorry. I'm not a native speaker of English. Never even set foot in an anglophone country. Clarified is indeed the verb I should have used.

No problem, we do believe we can reference other councils that clarify our understanding of the teaching passed to us from Christ through his Apostles. Just not new teachings.

[NicholasMyra]

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

I was never a Protestant or RC so this line of thinking is difficult for me to understand.

My answer would be, Jerusalem 1672 is considered by many Orthodox to be 'okay', but uses some terminology and phrasing economically for the time that is very Latin, and need not be perpetuated. It's not evil or scary or anything.

Constantinople V, by contrast, is definitely considered correct by all.

An "Ecumenical" council is just a council calling the bishop households of the whole Roman Empire (ecumene).  

[elijahmaria]

However, I am still under the impression that an Orthodox Christian is not required to believe in transubstantiation per se, only in the Real Presence. Is that incorrect?

I would go further and contend that one could say, "I don't like that council."

I don't like that council.

But you can't pretend it never happened.

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

Depends, is the essence-energy distinction dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxwiki
These two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils.

    VIII. Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879-880); restored St. Photius the Great to his see in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abrogating the decrees of the Robber Council of 869-870. This council was at first accepted as ecumenical by the West but later repudiated in favor of the robber council in 869-870 which had deposed Photius.
    IX. Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341-1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.

Can one be Eastern Orthodox and not believe in the essence-energies distinction then? If not, than either the Fifth Council(s) of Constantinople was ecumenical or dogma can be established outside of ecumenical councils, I think.

I think this council only affirmed the Orthodox teaching that we can connect to God (his energies). It did not establish the teaching just clarified what was always believed.
Councils did not establish Dogma, but clarified things due to heresy being introduced.

Oh sorry. I'm not a native speaker of English. Never even set foot in an anglophone country. Clarified is indeed the verb I should have used.

All things considered then, I wish I had your facility with foreign languages!!  I can manage but I struggle and it never seems or is as natural as you sound here!

Pardon the off topic comment but you are to be congratulated.

M.

[elijahmaria]

I'm not pretending. I genuinely was not aware of such a council. Can a non-Ecumenical council create dogma?

I was never a Protestant or RC so this line of thinking is difficult for me to understand.

My answer would be, Jerusalem 1672 is considered by many Orthodox to be 'okay', but uses some terminology and phrasing economically for the time that is very Latin, and need not be perpetuated. It's not evil or scary or anything.

Constantinople V, by contrast, is definitely considered correct by all.

An "Ecumenical" council is just a council calling the bishop households of the whole Roman Empire (ecumene).  

Just a thought...I often see Orthodox people use common Latin expressions quite naturally and correctly...Sometimes they are simply the most efficient or most recognizable ways of saying things.  I also hear Greek phrases or words used among those whose traditions are in the Latin west because they refer to things that are best expressed with the Greek phrase or word, for any number of reasons. 

I don't get the difficulty with that in either direction.

M.

[Cyrillic]

All things considered then, I wish I had your facility with foreign languages!!  I can manage but I struggle and it never seems or is as natural as you sound here!

Pardon the off topic comment but you are to be congratulated.

M.

Thank you, how kind.

However, talent for linguistics comes at a great price. I can't wrap my head around maths or natural sciences for example. So be careful what you wish for 

Also, there is no great need to learn any foreign language if you speak English natively.

[elijahmaria]

All things considered then, I wish I had your facility with foreign languages!!  I can manage but I struggle and it never seems or is as natural as you sound here!

Pardon the off topic comment but you are to be congratulated.

M.

Thank you, how kind.

However, talent for linguistics comes at a great price. I can't wrap my head around maths or natural sciences for example. So be careful what you wish for 

Also, there is no great need to learn any foreign language if you speak English natively.

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

Just to give some of my friends the honor of speaking to them in just one of their natal languages... ...would be a good thing and make me feel grand. 

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Well...had I known then what I know now...eh?...I might not have mis-spent my youth.

Blessings,

M.

[Cyrillic]

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

[elijahmaria]

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

Is language envy a sin?...

[Alpo]

Also, there is no great need to learn any foreign language if you speak English natively.

You obviously haven't ment any Czech or Russian. It could be due to the Soviet past or something but they speak hardly any English according to my experience.

[Cavaradossi]

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?

[NicholasMyra]

Just a thought...I often see Orthodox people use common Latin expressions quite naturally and correctly...Sometimes they are simply the most efficient or most recognizable ways of saying things.  I also hear Greek phrases or words used among those whose traditions are in the Latin west because they refer to things that are best expressed with the Greek phrase or word, for any number of reasons.  

I don't get the difficulty with that in either direction.

M.

EM, I don't have a problem using Latin terminology. I do have a problem with bad Greek metaphysics imported into the Latin tradition and taken far too seriously.

[Cyrillic]

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?

It is me.

[Cavaradossi]

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?

It is me.

Good to see you here.

[Cyrillic]

It would be good to be able to read ecclesial texts in their original languages...the holy fathers of the patristic era, or the contemporary fathers of today in the various Slavic and Romance languages, and Greek or Arabic...

I can read the Latin fathers somewhat easily. Still struggle with the Greek fathers though, constantly have to use a dictionary. Sometimes I cheat with the Greek fathers and look to the parallel Latin in the Patrologia Graeca

Latin is not too difficult once you the grammar.

I can read and understand some French and so I work with an Afro-Francophone author to help keep the original voice and tone in English translation and in that I feel that I am useful...and when she writes in English, I help her capture the same as though she were a native speaker.  She is very lyrical in her manner of being and expression and so I can help her do that when writing in English.  That is great fun!! and very satisfying.

Ah, la langue française, c'est une très belle langue, je pense. Bravo pour l'apprendre!

(I hope it's grammatically correct, if not, don't let my french teacher see it or she'll kill me )

You wouldn't happen to be a certain multi-lingual Nederlander who used that same avatar on another forum (the name of which shall go unmentioned), which I frequent, would you?

It is me.

Good to see you here.

Thank you, it's good to see you again too. You were my favorite poster back there, and I believe I never made much of a secret about that

[loggats]

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

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

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

[LBK]

In Orthodoxy, it is the Holy Spirit and not the priest who effects the change. Formally, the change occurs at the Epiklesis where the priest says the following prayer:

"Again we offer to Thee this noetic and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth.

Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,

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

Changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

When a deacon is present, the assent of the laos is given his amens that follow each petition to the Holy Spirit. In some Orthodox churches, the laos gives its assent by everybody saying amen. The point I am making here is that, the Orthodox priest is praying on behalf of the entire congregation and nothing can happen without the consent or affirmation by the laos, even if it is just one other person present.

This is interesting. The Sacramentary includes rubrics of the 'Order of Mass Without a Congregation' - is this concept foreign to Orthodoxy?

Yes, it is.