OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 06:45:02 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 6963 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


« on: October 23, 2012, 01:45:02 PM »

Catholic Church has a doctrine of Transubstantation. It teaches that in the eucharist, after the the priest bless the bread and the fruit of vine, the bread will transform to the real body of Christ  and the fruit of the vine will transform to the real blood of Christ.

Do Orthodox Christian believe it?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2012, 01:48:12 PM »

Catholic Church has a doctrine of Transubstantation. It teaches that in the eucharist, after the the priest bless the bread and the fruit of vine, the bread will transform to the real body of Christ  and the fruit of the vine will transform to the real blood of Christ.

Do Orthodox Christian believe it?

The Orthodox believe that the bread and wine is truly the body and blood of Christ.  But they do not believe in the teaching of Transubstantiation.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2012, 01:54:04 PM »

Catholic Church has a doctrine of Transubstantation. It teaches that in the eucharist, after the the priest bless the bread and the fruit of vine, the bread will transform to the real body of Christ  and the fruit of the vine will transform to the real blood of Christ.

Do Orthodox Christian believe it?

The Orthodox believe that the bread and wine is truly the body and blood of Christ.  But they do not believe in the teaching of Transubstantiation.

 The bread changes to the body of Christ , and the wine changes to blood of Christ after the priests bless the bread and the wine. How Orthodox Christian understand this change?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 01:54:53 PM by walter1234 » Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,038



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2012, 02:03:55 PM »


It's a Mystery.

One cannot possibly "understand" it.

Wink
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2012, 02:06:05 PM »

Nice quote for Orthodoxwiki.

The Eucharist is both symbolic and mystical. Also, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and his manifestation to us in Christ.

The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist, as Christ himself, is a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The Eucharist, because it belongs to God's Kingdom, is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.

From John of Damascus: "If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit ... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable"
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2012, 02:07:15 PM »

As Choy said, we believe that the Eucharist, in the Liturgy, becomes truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but there isn't really any more scholastic or scientific analysis beyond this. It has been what the Church taught from the beginning. Our Lord times tells us this very plainly:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." (John 6: 51-58)

St. Paul affirms the very real meaning of this, saying:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

He then explains the severity of not considering seriously the Eucharist, and says that many are ill and dead (i.e., "sleep") because they profane the Body and Blood of Christ:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

We believe this passages of Scripture, as they are understood in the ancient Holy Tradition of the Church, and confess that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood. As I said above, however, Transubstantation is a particularly scholastic belief concerning that, which is dogma in the Roman Catholic Church. It is not dogma in the Orthodox Church.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2012, 02:17:52 PM »

Catholic Church has a doctrine of Transubstantation. It teaches that in the eucharist, after the the priest bless the bread and the fruit of vine, the bread will transform to the real body of Christ  and the fruit of the vine will transform to the real blood of Christ.

Do Orthodox Christian believe it?
This is what a Catholic would say:

Quote
We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents.
....
[The] thing itself...is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are "accidents" which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing.
....
By the revelation of Christ [the mind] knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.
Orthodoxy would say that something does "happen" in the Eucharist, that something does "change", but would not try to use philosophical concepts like "accidents" and "subtance" to explain it.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 02:18:48 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2012, 02:19:40 PM »

There is an inherent weakness in the formula of transubstantiation.  Ask an RC why can someone with celiac cannot receive the Precious Body of Christ.  They will have this long explanation of what substance and accidents are, and basically tell you that the bread and wine is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ, and then proceed to tell you that it is bread and wine.

I personally think it trivializes such a great Mystery of our faith.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2012, 02:31:22 PM »

We basically believe the same thing as the Orthodox. Using the words transubstantiation, substance, and accidents, in no way suggests that we understand how the Holy Spirit brings about this change.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2012, 02:37:08 PM »

We basically believe the same thing as the Orthodox. Using the words transubstantiation, substance, and accidents, in no way suggests that we understand how the Holy Spirit brings about this change.

While Transubstantiation does not, in fact, answer the question of how it happens, it does elaborate greatly on the question of exactly what happens.

I understand the scholastic desire to define such things, particularly in the face of the Protestant Reformation, but Transubstantiation is not Orthodox dogma and has many dissenters among the Church Fathers, both pre- and post-schism.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2012, 02:44:08 PM »

We basically believe the same thing as the Orthodox. Using the words transubstantiation, substance, and accidents, in no way suggests that we understand how the Holy Spirit brings about this change.
Where is the doctrine of transubstantiation located in the hierarchy of truths, or the gradations in Church Teaching: (1) Dogma; (2) Definitive Doctrine; (3) Authoritative Doctrine; (4) Prudential Admonition/Church Discipline?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2012, 02:54:33 PM »

Council of Trent anathemizes those who deny transubstantiation

Canon II.—If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood—the species only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2012, 03:28:36 PM »

We basically believe the same thing as the Orthodox. Using the words transubstantiation, substance, and accidents, in no way suggests that we understand how the Holy Spirit brings about this change.

While Transubstantiation does not, in fact, answer the question of how it happens, it does elaborate greatly on the question of exactly what happens.

I understand the scholastic desire to define such things, particularly in the face of the Protestant Reformation, but Transubstantiation is not Orthodox dogma and has many dissenters among the Church Fathers, both pre- and post-schism.
In laymen's term, all it means is that it looks, feels, and acts like bread, but it is really the body and blood of Christ. Any ink spilled over differences on this matter is ink wasted. We have genuine differences like the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque. This is not one of those differences.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2012, 03:32:59 PM »

We basically believe the same thing as the Orthodox. Using the words transubstantiation, substance, and accidents, in no way suggests that we understand how the Holy Spirit brings about this change.

While Transubstantiation does not, in fact, answer the question of how it happens, it does elaborate greatly on the question of exactly what happens.

I understand the scholastic desire to define such things, particularly in the face of the Protestant Reformation, but Transubstantiation is not Orthodox dogma and has many dissenters among the Church Fathers, both pre- and post-schism.
In laymen's term, all it means is that it looks, feels, and acts like bread, but it is really the body and blood of Christ. Any ink spilled over differences on this matter is ink wasted. We have genuine differences like the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque. This is not one of those differences.

As with the Orthodox complain in many things the RC does, it is not about whether the belief is heretical per se.  But this over scholasticism of the faith does the faith no service.  The problem really is that trying to explain things only open more questions.  Even Jesus himself did not go into this detail when when most of his disciples left him (John 6).
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2012, 03:37:47 PM »

We basically believe the same thing as the Orthodox. Using the words transubstantiation, substance, and accidents, in no way suggests that we understand how the Holy Spirit brings about this change.

While Transubstantiation does not, in fact, answer the question of how it happens, it does elaborate greatly on the question of exactly what happens.

I understand the scholastic desire to define such things, particularly in the face of the Protestant Reformation, but Transubstantiation is not Orthodox dogma and has many dissenters among the Church Fathers, both pre- and post-schism.
In laymen's term, all it means is that it looks, feels, and acts like bread, but it is really the body and blood of Christ. Any ink spilled over differences on this matter is ink wasted. We have genuine differences like the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque. This is not one of those differences.

As with the Orthodox complain in many things the RC does, it is not about whether the belief is heretical per se.  But this over scholasticism of the faith does the faith no service.  The problem really is that trying to explain things only open more questions.  Even Jesus himself did not go into this detail when when most of his disciples left him (John 6).
It serves the faith very well for those who happen to be very philsophically oriented. This is actually one of the things that I love about the Latin tradition. That does not mean that I don't also appreciate the Byzantine approach as well, and for different reasons.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 03:38:46 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2012, 05:09:16 PM »

It serves the faith very well for those who happen to be very philsophically oriented. This is actually one of the things that I love about the Latin tradition. That does not mean that I don't also appreciate the Byzantine approach as well, and for different reasons.

I don't agree, sorry.  It is too scholastic.  Even my own understanding may not be enough about it, which again is an inherent weakness about scholasticism.  The Church uses reason too much, not only in understanding the faith but in everything.  Even Sacraments are only reserved for those who can understand it.  It is in Canon Law, the Eucharist is not to be given to those who cannot understand it, and children under the age of reason may receive it ONLY IF they know the difference of the Eucharist and food.  That is unpatristic and unbiblical.

Also, even if transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the Eucharist, it should not be dogmatized (or you should not be anathemized for not accepting it).  It should remain just a philosophical way of explaining the Eucharist, rather than part and parcel of the belief on the Real Presence.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2012, 10:03:20 AM »

It serves the faith very well for those who happen to be very philsophically oriented. This is actually one of the things that I love about the Latin tradition. That does not mean that I don't also appreciate the Byzantine approach as well, and for different reasons.

I don't agree, sorry.  It is too scholastic.  Even my own understanding may not be enough about it, which again is an inherent weakness about scholasticism.  The Church uses reason too much, not only in understanding the faith but in everything.  Even Sacraments are only reserved for those who can understand it.  It is in Canon Law, the Eucharist is not to be given to those who cannot understand it, and children under the age of reason may receive it ONLY IF they know the difference of the Eucharist and food.  That is unpatristic and unbiblical.

Also, even if transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the Eucharist, it should not be dogmatized (or you should not be anathemized for not accepting it).  It should remain just a philosophical way of explaining the Eucharist, rather than part and parcel of the belief on the Real Presence.
I guess you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. In my view, this is one of those areas in which some are just looking for reasons to disagree with "those horrible Latins," when in fact, there is no real disagreement. As for your idea that reason is over used, read the fathers. They were quite philosophical. What is more, the Orthodox of the middle ages were not so anti-reason as the Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. Again, if you want to talk about the areas where we truly disagree, look to things like the Papacy, the Filioque, and the Immaculate conception.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2012, 10:39:41 AM »

It serves the faith very well for those who happen to be very philsophically oriented. This is actually one of the things that I love about the Latin tradition. That does not mean that I don't also appreciate the Byzantine approach as well, and for different reasons.

I don't agree, sorry.  It is too scholastic.  Even my own understanding may not be enough about it, which again is an inherent weakness about scholasticism.  The Church uses reason too much, not only in understanding the faith but in everything.  Even Sacraments are only reserved for those who can understand it.  It is in Canon Law, the Eucharist is not to be given to those who cannot understand it, and children under the age of reason may receive it ONLY IF they know the difference of the Eucharist and food.  That is unpatristic and unbiblical.

Also, even if transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the Eucharist, it should not be dogmatized (or you should not be anathemized for not accepting it).  It should remain just a philosophical way of explaining the Eucharist, rather than part and parcel of the belief on the Real Presence.
I guess you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. In my view, this is one of those areas in which some are just looking for reasons to disagree with "those horrible Latins," when in fact, there is no real disagreement. As for your idea that reason is over used, read the fathers. They were quite philosophical. What is more, the Orthodox of the middle ages were not so anti-reason as the Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. Again, if you want to talk about the areas where we truly disagree, look to things like the Papacy, the Filioque, and the Immaculate conception.

No, I'm not saying that just to "disagree with those Latins".  Even when I was a Latin I fully agree that one does not need to believe in or understand Transubstantiation to believe in the Real Presence.  But the Council of Trent has proven me otherwise.  I mean, why do I need to accept Transubstantiation if I believe that the bread and wine is no longer and it is only the Body and Blood of Christ?  Why do I need to rack my brain with trying to understand accidents and substance?  Makes no sense.  It's like, do I need to be a rocket scientist to believe that we put a man on the moon?
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2012, 11:31:38 AM »

Many Fathers, pre-schism ones, teach something contrary to Transubstantiation, while maintaining belief in the Real Presence.

That said, I don't see anything particularly wrong with Transubstantiation as a belief. My issue comes in when Trent decides it is dogma. You can believe in Transubstantiation all you like. I know Orthodox that do, and I'm certainly not opposed to it myself...but it isn't a dogmatic issue. The only dogma that need be confessed is that the bread is truly the Body of Christ, and the wine truly the Blood of Christ. Beyond that, it does not matter, have whatever theory you want...or none at all!

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2012, 11:39:35 AM »

It serves the faith very well for those who happen to be very philsophically oriented. This is actually one of the things that I love about the Latin tradition. That does not mean that I don't also appreciate the Byzantine approach as well, and for different reasons.

I don't agree, sorry.  It is too scholastic.  Even my own understanding may not be enough about it, which again is an inherent weakness about scholasticism.  The Church uses reason too much, not only in understanding the faith but in everything.  Even Sacraments are only reserved for those who can understand it.  It is in Canon Law, the Eucharist is not to be given to those who cannot understand it, and children under the age of reason may receive it ONLY IF they know the difference of the Eucharist and food.  That is unpatristic and unbiblical.

Also, even if transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the Eucharist, it should not be dogmatized (or you should not be anathemized for not accepting it).  It should remain just a philosophical way of explaining the Eucharist, rather than part and parcel of the belief on the Real Presence.
I guess you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. In my view, this is one of those areas in which some are just looking for reasons to disagree with "those horrible Latins," when in fact, there is no real disagreement. As for your idea that reason is over used, read the fathers. They were quite philosophical. What is more, the Orthodox of the middle ages were not so anti-reason as the Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. Again, if you want to talk about the areas where we truly disagree, look to things like the Papacy, the Filioque, and the Immaculate conception.

No, I'm not saying that just to "disagree with those Latins".  Even when I was a Latin I fully agree that one does not need to believe in or understand Transubstantiation to believe in the Real Presence.  But the Council of Trent has proven me otherwise.  I mean, why do I need to accept Transubstantiation if I believe that the bread and wine is no longer and it is only the Body and Blood of Christ?  Why do I need to rack my brain with trying to understand accidents and substance?  Makes no sense.  It's like, do I need to be a rocket scientist to believe that we put a man on the moon?
Why should I rack my brains trying to understand essence and energies? Person and Nature? Of the same substance? etc. etc. etc. The East is just as intellectual as the West.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2012, 11:40:22 AM »

Many Fathers, pre-schism ones, teach something contrary to Transubstantiation, while maintaining belief in the Real Presence.

That said, I don't see anything particularly wrong with Transubstantiation as a belief. My issue comes in when Trent decides it is dogma. You can believe in Transubstantiation all you like. I know Orthodox that do, and I'm certainly not opposed to it myself...but it isn't a dogmatic issue. The only dogma that need be confessed is that the bread is truly the Body of Christ, and the wine truly the Blood of Christ. Beyond that, it does not matter, have whatever theory you want...or none at all!


I think this is a fair evaluation given an Orthodox perspective.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,861



« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2012, 11:59:51 AM »

It serves the faith very well for those who happen to be very philsophically oriented. This is actually one of the things that I love about the Latin tradition. That does not mean that I don't also appreciate the Byzantine approach as well, and for different reasons.

I don't agree, sorry.  It is too scholastic.  Even my own understanding may not be enough about it, which again is an inherent weakness about scholasticism.  The Church uses reason too much, not only in understanding the faith but in everything.  Even Sacraments are only reserved for those who can understand it.  It is in Canon Law, the Eucharist is not to be given to those who cannot understand it, and children under the age of reason may receive it ONLY IF they know the difference of the Eucharist and food.  That is unpatristic and unbiblical.

Also, even if transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the Eucharist, it should not be dogmatized (or you should not be anathemized for not accepting it).  It should remain just a philosophical way of explaining the Eucharist, rather than part and parcel of the belief on the Real Presence.
I guess you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. In my view, this is one of those areas in which some are just looking for reasons to disagree with "those horrible Latins," when in fact, there is no real disagreement. As for your idea that reason is over used, read the fathers. They were quite philosophical. What is more, the Orthodox of the middle ages were not so anti-reason as the Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. Again, if you want to talk about the areas where we truly disagree, look to things like the Papacy, the Filioque, and the Immaculate conception.

No, I'm not saying that just to "disagree with those Latins".  Even when I was a Latin I fully agree that one does not need to believe in or understand Transubstantiation to believe in the Real Presence.  But the Council of Trent has proven me otherwise.  I mean, why do I need to accept Transubstantiation if I believe that the bread and wine is no longer and it is only the Body and Blood of Christ?  Why do I need to rack my brain with trying to understand accidents and substance?  Makes no sense.  It's like, do I need to be a rocket scientist to believe that we put a man on the moon?
Hence the problem, of the Vatican's own making.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2012, 12:32:48 PM »

Why should I rack my brains trying to understand essence and energies? Person and Nature? Of the same substance? etc. etc. etc. The East is just as intellectual as the West.

Because essence/energies is an important soteriological distinction, and the West does care about it. Person, nature and substance are also vital to understanding the Trinity (and you all have those very same distinctions yourselves, so I hope you care about it).

However, Transubstantation is additional to understanding the Real Presence and not vital to it.

I'm not going to argue about intellectual vs. mystical, as both East and West have utilized both sides of that coin. Scholasticism, however, when taken to an extreme, can be a problem (e.g., Papal Supremacy, Immaculate Conception)

Of course, mysticism taken to an extreme can also be bad (see Gnosticism).
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2012, 01:19:42 PM »

Why should I rack my brains trying to understand essence and energies? Person and Nature? Of the same substance? etc. etc. etc. The East is just as intellectual as the West.

Can you cite the canons that enforce these teachings?  The gripe about Transubstantiation is that it is merely an explanation of how the Real Presence is, not what the Real Presence is itself.  Thus you can have another way of explaining it, come to the same conclusion, and should not be anathemized for it.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2012, 01:56:07 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2012, 02:02:05 PM »

Why should I rack my brains trying to understand essence and energies? Person and Nature? Of the same substance? etc. etc. etc. The East is just as intellectual as the West.

Can you cite the canons that enforce these teachings?  The gripe about Transubstantiation is that it is merely an explanation of how the Real Presence is, not what the Real Presence is itself.  Thus you can have another way of explaining it, come to the same conclusion, and should not be anathemized for it.
Yes, if you reject the person/nature distinction, and if you reject "of the same substance" with regard to the Father and the Son, then the ecumenical councils delcare you anathema.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2012, 02:06:08 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2012, 02:06:34 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2012, 02:16:58 PM »

I would say that both Transubstantion and Consubstantion are completely Orthodox beliefs concerning the Real Presence. The RCC would anathematize me for saying so.

Transubstantion is an acceptable belief, not the acceptable belief.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2012, 02:44:25 PM »

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


I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

There are two distinctions between the Latin teaching and the Orthodox discussions about this.  In Transubstantiation, I understand there to be a specific moment where it can be said that the Offering is and isn't the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  This translates into an idea where the Mass can be divided into these distinctions, whereas in the Orthodox Liturgy no one moment is necessarily any more important than another.  We celebrate the entirety of the Liturgy as a composite moment, as a gradual process rather than an instant becoming.  There is no lightning moment where the Bread suddenly is the Body and the Wine suddenly is the Blood.  The second distinction is that our Orthodox Fathers prefer not to ask too many questions about how or why the Holy Communion remains in the appearance as ordinary bread and wine.  This is a more disconcerting way of thinking for the Latin mindset, but for Orthodox, just to say, "It is, deal with it" sometimes is theology enough.  If anything, I dare say the discussions of Metousiosis in the Orthodox and further Palamite theology evolved as a response and reaction to Latin developments, I wouldn't even think it is an organic Orthodox addition.  I don't think these matters come up much in Orthodox discussions, and so our teachings seem to me to  be an apology to Catholic questions posed towards Orthodox, not necessarily genuine Orthodox questioning.  We teach the same things, and yet we don't.  We teach that the Offering becomes in a substantive way the Body and Blood of Christ, but we neglect to be pushed to define when this happens.  Further, we also acknowledge that the Holy Communion appears to remain Bread and Wine, but we don't put to much thought into it, our focus is on Christ, not mechanics or chemistry  angel



I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

I agree with you a degree, which is why the Ethiopian Fathers haven't had the in-depth discussions of this Energies-Essence matter as the Palamite theologians.  We consider such matters to be doctrine rather than dogma, some Ethiopians accept or agree with Gregory Palamas, others do not. Our Fathers generally have been more content to simply let the Mystery cards fall where they will. Further, I'm not sure the Orthodox ontology ever even tries to define matters of the Spirit, rather, offer a kind of almost guided meditation.  The doctrines and Canons about the Holy Communion in Orthodox were never meant to intellectually describe the Mysteries in the abstract sense.  Rather, these are there to assist Orthodox Christians in their prayer life to better experience what is happening in the Mysteries, our emphasis always remains experiential rather than explanation.

Think of discussions about Metousiosis as being a kind of loquacious prayer book in this regard  angel

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 02:52:00 PM by HabteSelassie » 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2012, 02:45:28 PM »

I would say that both Transubstantion and Consubstantion are completely Orthodox beliefs concerning the Real Presence. The RCC would anathematize me for saying so.

Transubstantion is an acceptable belief, not the acceptable belief.
That's an interesting view. Was this view widely held before the 20th century?

Also, it is my understanding that in certain jurisdictions, converts from Lutheranism are expected to verbally renounce the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation before they are received into Orthodoxy. Have you heard anything about this?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2012, 02:47:26 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself.
Is there "a thing itself"? Or is that a philosophical assumption? Must I believe that there is "a thing itself" in order to not be anathematized?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2012, 02:47:51 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief.  The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2012, 02:50:00 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief.  The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.
And I fail how to see how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is more philosophical than the next explanation. It's the same teaching in a particular language. All the Church is saying is that you must believe that it is really Christ's body and blood, and while it looks and acts like bread an wine. I still fail to understand your point.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: October 24, 2012, 02:50:44 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself.
Is there "a thing itself"? Or is that a philosophical assumption? Must I believe that there is "a thing itself" in order to not be anathematized?
I'm not sure I understand your question. How could something not be a "thing?" That's not really philosophy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2012, 02:56:25 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself.
Is there "a thing itself"? Or is that a philosophical assumption? Must I believe that there is "a thing itself" in order to not be anathematized?
I'm not sure I understand your question. How could something not be a "thing?" That's not really philosophy.
Are "a thing" and "a thing itself" (the "substance") not identical?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2012, 02:57:41 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief.  The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.
Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #37 on: October 24, 2012, 02:58:04 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself.
Is there "a thing itself"? Or is that a philosophical assumption? Must I believe that there is "a thing itself" in order to not be anathematized?
I'm not sure I understand your question. How could something not be a "thing?" That's not really philosophy.
Are "a thing" and "a thing itself" (the "substance") not identical?
Sure.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,861



« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2012, 03:31:47 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.
The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,861



« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2012, 03:34:15 PM »

Why should I rack my brains trying to understand essence and energies? Person and Nature? Of the same substance? etc. etc. etc. The East is just as intellectual as the West.

Can you cite the canons that enforce these teachings?  The gripe about Transubstantiation is that it is merely an explanation of how the Real Presence is, not what the Real Presence is itself.  Thus you can have another way of explaining it, come to the same conclusion, and should not be anathemized for it.
Yes, if you reject the person/nature distinction, and if you reject "of the same substance" with regard to the Father and the Son, then the ecumenical councils delcare you anathema.
what do you mean by the "person/nature distinction"  as the term "hypostasis" has been used for both?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,861



« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2012, 03:35:43 PM »

I would say that both Transubstantion and Consubstantion are completely Orthodox beliefs concerning the Real Presence. The RCC would anathematize me for saying so.

Transubstantion is an acceptable belief, not the acceptable belief.
That's an interesting view. Was this view widely held before the 20th century?

Also, it is my understanding that in certain jurisdictions, converts from Lutheranism are expected to verbally renounce the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation before they are received into Orthodoxy. Have you heard anything about this?
Yes, somewhere I posted the renunciation.  I have to admit, as a Lutheran, I didn't believe what I was renouncing in the first place.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,861



« Reply #41 on: October 24, 2012, 03:36:42 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief.  The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.
And I fail how to see how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is more philosophical than the next explanation.
because you insist on it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,861



« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2012, 03:40:46 PM »

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

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief.  The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.
Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.
Only in comparison to the Nestorian and Eutychian complications of a prosoponic Christiology and monophysite Christology.

Believing Christ is both human and divine, consubstantial with His Father and with His mother, is enough. That was too simple for Nestorius and Eutyches, and they had to "explain" things.  Hence the Councils.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #43 on: October 24, 2012, 03:45:26 PM »

Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.

Where in Chalcedon (the canons) did it say that I must believe it exactly how it is stated?  As ialmisry said, it can be simplified and still acceptable.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2012, 06:10:44 PM »

Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.

Where in Chalcedon (the canons) did it say that I must believe it exactly how it is stated?  As ialmisry said, it can be simplified and still acceptable.
and so can transubstantiation. Smiley But the point is, in both cases the Church(es) insist on philosophical definitions. So what? Who cares? What is the big deal. I can see you arguing that it should not be insisted upon. I get it. But then the Church insists on stuff. And just as the Church had insist on the philosophical definition at Chalcedon to counter the Nestorians and such, so too did it have to insist on a philosophical definition at Trent to counter the protestants.
Look, I honestly don't care if you agree with my faith on this point. But I think it's silly to argue that there is a substantial difference between the East and the West on this matter. We have much bigger, much more real, differences like the Immaculate Concetion, the Filioque, and the Papacy. If you all want to beat a dead staw horse (yes, I'm mixing metaphors) have at. We all need something to do with our free time.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 06:11:05 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 0.198 seconds with 72 queries.