OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 12:11:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Transubstantation?  (Read 6706 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 918


« 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: 918


« 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: 13,013



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: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


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: 12,191


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: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« 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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


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: 12,191


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: 12,191


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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« 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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« 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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« 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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« 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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« 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: 12,191


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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: October 24, 2012, 06:11:57 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.
A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like. Smiley
Logged

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

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: 37,605



« Reply #46 on: October 24, 2012, 06:25:13 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.
A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like. Smiley
Energies aren't accidents.
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 #47 on: October 24, 2012, 06:39:22 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?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantion, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantion simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantion, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantion, however, seems Orthodox to me.
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: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #48 on: October 24, 2012, 06:47:24 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.
A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like. Smiley
Energies aren't accidents.
Never said they were.  Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2012, 06:48:13 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?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantion, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantion simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantion, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantion, however, seems Orthodox to me.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that Lutherans professed the idea of consubstantiation.
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 #50 on: October 24, 2012, 07:00:32 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?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantion, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantion simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantion, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantion, however, seems Orthodox to me.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that Lutherans professed the idea of consubstantiation.

I believe it's a common impression. I held it myself until a Lutheran made sure I knew that wasn't true, then went off to research it myself! Grin
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2012, 07:16:53 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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #52 on: October 24, 2012, 07:35:51 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2012, 07:54:28 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2012, 07:55:57 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.
Maria, you are awesome!  Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2012, 08:00:37 PM »

Orthodox - like Roman Catholics - believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, while simply refusing to speak about this mystery of faith using Aristotelian metaphysical categories. 

Nevertheless, as far as the doctrine of the Eucharist is concerned, East and West share a common faith in Christ's real presence, and that is what should be emphasized in ecumenical discourse.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 08:00:47 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2012, 08:08:24 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.
Maria, you are awesome!  Smiley

 angel
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 #57 on: October 25, 2012, 02:16:07 AM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

I would rather be transformed by the renewing of my mind and swim in the Mystery of God...then to garble it with thick-headed pagan philosophy contrary to the Faith.

Quote
The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Before we address your "other note", we understand that energies are eternal, just as much God as the essence, and not "created." Either you're not representing your faith properly, or you all are really bad at naming things. So, elaborate.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 25, 2012, 01:01:28 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

I would rather be transformed by the renewing of my mind and swim in the Mystery of God...then to garble it with thick-headed pagan philosophy contrary to the Faith.

Quote
The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Before we address your "other note", we understand that energies are eternal, just as much God as the essence, and not "created." Either you're not representing your faith properly, or you all are really bad at naming things. So, elaborate.

Had the fathers been as blindly submerged as you appear to want to be, they would never have been able to make the subtle and fine distinctions necessary to separate falsehood from truth, heresy from orthodoxy.

In your last comment, you sound like the phyletists who think THEIR language is the only one capable of naming things accurately, spiritually, mystically, theologically. liturgically and <gasp>...intellectually... Cheesy
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 01:02:15 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,380


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 25, 2012, 01:08:20 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

I would rather be transformed by the renewing of my mind and swim in the Mystery of God...then to garble it with thick-headed pagan philosophy contrary to the Faith.

Quote
The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Before we address your "other note", we understand that energies are eternal, just as much God as the essence, and not "created." Either you're not representing your faith properly, or you all are really bad at naming things. So, elaborate.

Had the fathers been as blindly submerged as you appear to want to be, they would never have been able to make the subtle and fine distinctions necessary to separate falsehood from truth, heresy from orthodoxy.

In your last comment, you sound like the phyletists who think THEIR language is the only one capable of naming things accurately, spiritually, mystically, theologically. liturgically and <gasp>...intellectually... Cheesy


"Intellectually" ! Eees outrage!  Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« Reply #60 on: October 25, 2012, 01:10:27 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.
Maria, you are awesome!  Smiley

 angel
As we say in Egypt, the pot has found its ladle.
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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« Reply #61 on: October 25, 2012, 01:15:46 PM »

Had the fathers been as blindly submerged as you appear to want to be, they would never have been able to make the subtle and fine distinctions necessary to separate falsehood from truth, heresy from orthodoxy.
The Fathers only had to do that because of heretics hell bent (literally) in making up subtle and fine distinctions and ending up mixing falsehood with Truth and confusing heresy for Orthodoxy.  Answering a fool in his folly is dangerous work, as Origen found out.

In your last comment, you sound like the phyletists who think THEIR language is the only one capable of naming things accurately, spiritually, mystically, theologically. liturgically and <gasp>...intellectually... Cheesy
You can call a spade a spade, in any language.
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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« Reply #62 on: October 25, 2012, 01:17:55 PM »

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.
Only if you follow the fool down the rabbit hole.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...M.
or you refuse to cast pearls....
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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« Reply #63 on: October 25, 2012, 01:21:17 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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.
Demand that they meet their burden of proof in their accusation.

As for the Scholastic terminology, the fact that they call the uncreated created renders it oxymoronic, and maybe not even oxi-.
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
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« Reply #64 on: October 25, 2012, 01:26:01 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.
A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like. Smiley
Energies aren't accidents.
Never said they were.  Grin
Then why did you bring it up?
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #65 on: October 25, 2012, 01:29:45 PM »

Here we go...again Grin

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« Reply #66 on: October 25, 2012, 01:31:45 PM »

Here we go...again Grin


Does a change occur in the corn there to become pop?  Or does it just remain corn.
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #67 on: October 25, 2012, 01:36:55 PM »

Here we go...again Grin


Does a change occur in the corn there to become pop?  Or does it just remain corn.

LOL!

The pop is an accident.  Unless, of course, it's on purpose.  Cheesy
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #68 on: October 25, 2012, 06:25:05 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.
A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like. Smiley
Energies aren't accidents.
Never said they were.  Grin
Then why did you bring it up?
Just to point out that we both, Latin and Byzantine, use greek philosophical terminology to explain our faith.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #69 on: October 25, 2012, 06:26:52 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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.
Demand that they meet their burden of proof in their accusation.

As for the Scholastic terminology, the fact that they call the uncreated created renders it oxymoronic, and maybe not even oxi-.
In the Summa theologiae, St. Thomas makes it clear that only the Divine can deify. So when he speaks of "created grace," he must be speaking of the state of being in God's grace, and not the nature of sanctifying grace itself.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
bergschlawiner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 235

Sarisan


« Reply #70 on: October 26, 2012, 01:31:21 AM »

Orthodox - like Roman Catholics - believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, while simply refusing to speak about this mystery of faith using Aristotelian metaphysical categories. 

Nevertheless, as far as the doctrine of the Eucharist is concerned, East and West share a common faith in Christ's real presence, and that is what should be emphasized in ecumenical discourse.

What an excellent response!  Free of all the symantics that are meaningless to the simple believers who grew up with this firm belief.  Thanks.
Logged
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #71 on: October 26, 2012, 10:57:42 AM »

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Protestants like to quote this passage from pope Gelasius I's Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium:

« Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.

Certe sacramenta, quæ sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. »

I would like to have the entire text, but I do not know where to find it. It is said to be in the supplements of the Migne edition, but the library where I can find the Migne volumes do not have the supplements. The reference is: Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: éditions Garnier Frères, 1964).

The debate is heated between Roman Catholics and Protestants because the text, being a tractatus, looks like an ex cathedra statement.
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,579



« Reply #72 on: October 26, 2012, 06:03:57 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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,605



« Reply #73 on: October 26, 2012, 07:19:45 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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
No.  The divine energies are co-eternal.
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
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #74 on: October 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM »

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Protestants like to quote this passage from pope Gelasius I's Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium:

« Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.

Certe sacramenta, quæ sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. »

I would like to have the entire text, but I do not know where to find it. It is said to be in the supplements of the Migne edition, but the library where I can find the Migne volumes do not have the supplements. The reference is: Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: éditions Garnier Frères, 1964).

The debate is heated between Roman Catholics and Protestants because the text, being a tractatus, looks like an ex cathedra statement.


Even though the quote doesn't make a case for transubstantiation or a transubstantiation-like understanding of the holy mystery, it certainly does not assist the memorialists, amongst whom we must fairly count so many protestants.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,579



« Reply #75 on: October 26, 2012, 08:39:47 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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
No.  The divine energies are co-eternal.

Surely you should know that the term prior in philosophy does not always have temporal implications.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 08:40:34 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #76 on: October 27, 2012, 01:04:47 AM »

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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #77 on: October 27, 2012, 01:25:04 AM »

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



I don't mind catching fame on OC.net but could y'all kindly stop repeating my quote so much in y'all's further discussion please? It is a tangent from what I was talking about and its been like a dozen times repeated now.. police

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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,579



« Reply #78 on: October 27, 2012, 01:29:20 AM »

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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 01:34:06 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #79 on: October 27, 2012, 01:36:48 AM »

I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are logically prior to the other.
There can be no essence without energy.  The two terms are coordinate.  I would give priority to hypostasis (subsistence), for to do anything else risks falling into pagan essentialism.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #80 on: October 27, 2012, 01:40:20 AM »

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

Thank you kindly Smiley

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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #81 on: October 27, 2012, 01:40:58 AM »

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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).
Yes, I was thinking of St. John when I made my comment.  Essence without energy lacks reality.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,579



« Reply #82 on: October 27, 2012, 01:57:12 AM »

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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).
Yes, I was thinking of St. John when I made my comment.  Essence without energy lacks reality.
And both do not subsist without without hypostasis, which leads us to St. Gregory Palamas' three realities of essence, energy, the triad of divine hypostaseis. Perhaps that should be made into a new measuring stick of Orthodoxy, just like the phrase, "one of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh," but then union between the Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy would be nearly impossible, as they already seem uncomfortable enough with the latter statement. laugh
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 01:58:45 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #83 on: October 27, 2012, 05:00:50 PM »

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.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.



I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).
Yes, I was thinking of St. John when I made my comment.  Essence without energy lacks reality.
And both do not subsist without without hypostasis, which leads us to St. Gregory Palamas' three realities of essence, energy, the triad of divine hypostaseis. Perhaps that should be made into a new measuring stick of Orthodoxy, just like the phrase, "one of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh," but then union between the Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy would be nearly impossible, as they already seem uncomfortable enough with the latter statement. laugh
Why would we be uncomfortable with "one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh?" That is our Christology.
Logged

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,579



« Reply #84 on: October 27, 2012, 07:24:47 PM »

Why would we be uncomfortable with "one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh?" That is our Christology.
Quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote
Certain expressions, though correct in themselves, are for extrinsic reasons, inadmissible; the statement "One of the Trinity was crucified" was misapplied in a Monophysite sense and was therefore forbidden by Pope Hormisdas...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm

Perhaps Catholic theology has had a shift in consciousness since the time the Catholic Encyclopedia was published, or perhaps the author was just totally off of his rocker on this one. If so, I will defer to your experience.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 07:25:25 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #85 on: October 28, 2012, 10:12:41 AM »

It's been my experience that we are comfortable with the idea that God made man died for our sins.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #86 on: October 28, 2012, 10:16:15 AM »

Theopaschite language is amusing to shock the average christian. "God died" is my favorite.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 10:17:07 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #87 on: October 28, 2012, 01:59:46 PM »

This shouldn't even be an issue worth discussing. Catholics and Orthodox both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we use a different word, transubstantiation, to describe the same belief. As others have said, there really is not a doctrinal difference.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #88 on: October 28, 2012, 02:23:35 PM »

This shouldn't even be an issue worth discussing. Catholics and Orthodox both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we use a different word, transubstantiation, to describe the same belief. As others have said, there really is not a doctrinal difference.
I think part of the issue is the apparent anathematization of those who refuse to speak in substance/accident language, or who reject such language.
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.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #89 on: October 28, 2012, 02:25:44 PM »

This shouldn't even be an issue worth discussing. Catholics and Orthodox both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we use a different word, transubstantiation, to describe the same belief. As others have said, there really is not a doctrinal difference.
I think part of the issue is the apparent anathematization of those who refuse to speak in substance/accident language, or who reject such language.

Source?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #90 on: October 28, 2012, 07:41:53 PM »

This shouldn't even be an issue worth discussing. Catholics and Orthodox both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we use a different word, transubstantiation, to describe the same belief. As others have said, there really is not a doctrinal difference.
I think part of the issue is the apparent anathematization of those who refuse to speak in substance/accident language, or who reject such language.

Source?
Chapter IV

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called 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

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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #91 on: October 28, 2012, 07:52:33 PM »

This shouldn't even be an issue worth discussing. Catholics and Orthodox both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we use a different word, transubstantiation, to describe the same belief. As others have said, there really is not a doctrinal difference.
I think part of the issue is the apparent anathematization of those who refuse to speak in substance/accident language, or who reject such language.

Source?
Chapter IV

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called 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.
Did Jesus say "My body is in the bread"? Did He say "My blood is present within this wine"? No. He said "This is my body" and "this is my blood." At the Mass, the bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what transubstantiation means. How does this differ with what Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox believe?

It is easy for the Eastern Orthodox to just say "real presence" and leave it at that. You didn't have to deal with a plethora of Protestant heresies attacking the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #92 on: October 28, 2012, 08:23:01 PM »

This shouldn't even be an issue worth discussing. Catholics and Orthodox both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we use a different word, transubstantiation, to describe the same belief. As others have said, there really is not a doctrinal difference.
I think part of the issue is the apparent anathematization of those who refuse to speak in substance/accident language, or who reject such language.

Source?
Chapter IV

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called 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.
Did Jesus say "My body is in the bread"? Did He say "My blood is present within this wine"? No. He said "This is my body" and "this is my blood." At the Mass, the bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what transubstantiation means. How does this differ with what Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox believe?
What exactly is the "substance" of, say, the bread, as opposed to the "accidents" of the bread? Substance/accident language seems to add a level of abstraction not present in the language of the Last Supper.

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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #93 on: October 28, 2012, 08:26:48 PM »

Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.
I thought Canon I talked about such change taking place, quite nicely, without substance/accident language:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 08:27:44 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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #94 on: October 28, 2012, 08:53:24 PM »

This shouldn't even be an issue worth discussing. Catholics and Orthodox both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we use a different word, transubstantiation, to describe the same belief. As others have said, there really is not a doctrinal difference.
I think part of the issue is the apparent anathematization of those who refuse to speak in substance/accident language, or who reject such language.

Source?
Chapter IV

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called 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.
Did Jesus say "My body is in the bread"? Did He say "My blood is present within this wine"? No. He said "This is my body" and "this is my blood." At the Mass, the bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what transubstantiation means. How does this differ with what Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox believe?
What exactly is the "substance" of, say, the bread, as opposed to the "accidents" of the bread? Substance/accident language seems to add a level of abstraction not present in the language of the Last Supper.
The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.
I thought Canon I talked about such change taking place, quite nicely, without substance/accident language:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
The root word of substantially or substantial is what?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #95 on: October 28, 2012, 09:00:56 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?

Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.
Quote
I thought Canon I talked about such change taking place, quite nicely, without substance/accident language:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
The root word of substantially or substantial is what?
"Substance" here is not set up as opposed to "accident".
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 09:01:54 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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #96 on: October 28, 2012, 09:11:57 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things, otherwise the Eucharist would physically appear to be flesh and blood, but it does not. Nevertheless, a change has taken place. This is why we say the substance has changed.

Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.
Quote
I thought Canon I talked about such change taking place, quite nicely, without substance/accident language:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
The root word of substantially or substantial is what?
"Substance" here is not set up as opposed to "accident".
No, but it is indicating that a substantial change (i.e. a change in substance) has occurred.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #97 on: October 28, 2012, 09:15:22 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.



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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #98 on: October 28, 2012, 09:19:05 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 09:19:59 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #99 on: October 28, 2012, 09:27:41 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?

I think the question of whether any entity is actually two (the thing itself, and what it appears to be) is at the heart of the issue.

I don't see how hard it is to say that that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood, and leave it at that, in terms of defining something dogmatically. If one wants to propose the dualism of "thing as it is" and "thing as it appears to be", then that should be a philosophical option, not a dogma, it seems to me.

Canon I's use of "substantially" is not explicitly used as the opposite of "accident," but it could be read as so, so I can see how Canon I is based on the transubstantion idea, which makes it redundant since Canon II explicitly deals with transubstantiation.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 09:30:45 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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #100 on: October 28, 2012, 09:33:26 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?

I think the question of whether any entity is actually two (the thing itself, and what it appears to be) is at the heart of the issue.

I don't see how hard it is to say that that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood, and leave it at that, in terms of defining something dogmatically. If one wants to propose the dualism of "thing as it is" and "thing as it appears to be", then that should be a philosophical option, not a dogma, it seems to me.
You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #101 on: October 28, 2012, 09:43:48 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?

I think the question of whether any entity is actually two (the thing itself, and what it appears to be) is at the heart of the issue.

I don't see how hard it is to say that that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood, and leave it at that, in terms of defining something dogmatically. If one wants to propose the dualism of "thing as it is" and "thing as it appears to be", then that should be a philosophical option, not a dogma, it seems to me.
You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?
There's a third option (C): the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, because the Body and Blood of Christ do not need to appear as biological flesh and blood.
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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #102 on: October 28, 2012, 09:49:27 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?

I think the question of whether any entity is actually two (the thing itself, and what it appears to be) is at the heart of the issue.

I don't see how hard it is to say that that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood, and leave it at that, in terms of defining something dogmatically. If one wants to propose the dualism of "thing as it is" and "thing as it appears to be", then that should be a philosophical option, not a dogma, it seems to me.
You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?
There's a third option (C): the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, because the Body and Blood of Christ do not need to appear as biological flesh and blood.
You've just described transubstantiation.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,389


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #103 on: October 28, 2012, 10:13:53 PM »

Yeah, but it's got to be more complicated and confusing than that! It just does!

(Eyes bug out like in a cartoon)

Or else we'd be the same and we couldn't feel weird about this issue. Noooooooo.

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #104 on: October 28, 2012, 10:27:08 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?

I think the question of whether any entity is actually two (the thing itself, and what it appears to be) is at the heart of the issue.

I don't see how hard it is to say that that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood, and leave it at that, in terms of defining something dogmatically. If one wants to propose the dualism of "thing as it is" and "thing as it appears to be", then that should be a philosophical option, not a dogma, it seems to me.
You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?
There's a third option (C): the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, because the Body and Blood of Christ do not need to appear as biological flesh and blood.
You've just described transubstantiation.
And yet I did not use substance/accident language.
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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #105 on: October 28, 2012, 11:08:44 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?

I think the question of whether any entity is actually two (the thing itself, and what it appears to be) is at the heart of the issue.

I don't see how hard it is to say that that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood, and leave it at that, in terms of defining something dogmatically. If one wants to propose the dualism of "thing as it is" and "thing as it appears to be", then that should be a philosophical option, not a dogma, it seems to me.
You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?
There's a third option (C): the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, because the Body and Blood of Christ do not need to appear as biological flesh and blood.
You've just described transubstantiation.
And yet I did not use substance/accident language.
So you object to the words themselves, not the meaning of the words?
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 #106 on: October 28, 2012, 11:24:20 PM »

Did Jesus say "My body is in the bread"? Did He say "My blood is present within this wine"? No. He said "This is my body" and "this is my blood." At the Mass, the bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what transubstantiation means. How does this differ with what Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox believe?

It is easy for the Eastern Orthodox to just say "real presence" and leave it at that. You didn't have to deal with a plethora of Protestant heresies attacking the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.

I don't see why someone has to believe the bread and wine are now the Body and Blood, and that bread and wine aren't there anymore. I see no problem with a Christian believing that they are partaking of bread and wine, so long as they understand they are also partaking of the true, real Body and Blood of Christ. I also don't see a problem with believing as you state. The importance is that they confess the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. That's all.

I understand that the West had to deal with Protestantism, and we did not. However, I believe there are ways to affirm the Real Presence without believing in transubstantiation.

You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?

It doesn't "prove" transubstantiation. It makes it a valid approach to speaking about the Real Presence, but that isn't the only opinion that still affirms the Real Presence in an orthodox manner. And, for the record, I don't find transubstantiation outlandish or difficult to understand, I just find other explanations to be equally acceptable. I have no qualms with the teaching itself, I have qualms with that fact that it is a dogma.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #107 on: October 29, 2012, 12:27:26 PM »

Did Jesus say "My body is in the bread"? Did He say "My blood is present within this wine"? No. He said "This is my body" and "this is my blood." At the Mass, the bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what transubstantiation means. How does this differ with what Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox believe?

It is easy for the Eastern Orthodox to just say "real presence" and leave it at that. You didn't have to deal with a plethora of Protestant heresies attacking the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.

I don't see why someone has to believe the bread and wine are now the Body and Blood, and that bread and wine aren't there anymore. I see no problem with a Christian believing that they are partaking of bread and wine, so long as they understand they are also partaking of the true, real Body and Blood of Christ. I also don't see a problem with believing as you state. The importance is that they confess the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. That's all.

I understand that the West had to deal with Protestantism, and we did not. However, I believe there are ways to affirm the Real Presence without believing in transubstantiation.

You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?

It doesn't "prove" transubstantiation. It makes it a valid approach to speaking about the Real Presence, but that isn't the only opinion that still affirms the Real Presence in an orthodox manner. And, for the record, I don't find transubstantiation outlandish or difficult to understand, I just find other explanations to be equally acceptable. I have no qualms with the teaching itself, I have qualms with that fact that it is a dogma.
You say that believing that one is receiving bread and wine in the Eucharist is acceptable as long as they also believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. However, this is what Lutherans believe. Aren't there former Lutherans on here who have talked about having to renounce such a believe when they entered the Orthodox Church? I'm thinking ialmisry has said this before, but I may be mistaken. If it is an acceptable and orthodox view of the Eucharist, why would the Orthodox Church require one to renounce it before entering Orthodoxy?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #108 on: October 29, 2012, 01:16:34 PM »

The accidents are its observable attributes, the substance is what it really is. It still looks, smells, tastes, etc. bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
You're assuming that "what bread really is" is something different from what can be observed as bread. If "what bread really is" can never be separated from what can be observed as bread, then why make the distinction between what bread "really is" and what bread "seems to be"?
Obviously what something truly is and what something seems to be are two different things....
Far from being obvious, that's quite an assumption.
Not so. If you don't believe they are two different things then you either do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or else every Eucharist you have participated in has resulted in an extraordinary Eucharistic miracle where the gifts visibly transform into flesh and blood. EDIT: The second part of my post addressed that point but I noticed you ignored the rest of my post and chose only to focus on a snippet. Why is that?

I think the question of whether any entity is actually two (the thing itself, and what it appears to be) is at the heart of the issue.

I don't see how hard it is to say that that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood, and leave it at that, in terms of defining something dogmatically. If one wants to propose the dualism of "thing as it is" and "thing as it appears to be", then that should be a philosophical option, not a dogma, it seems to me.
You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?
There's a third option (C): the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, because the Body and Blood of Christ do not need to appear as biological flesh and blood.
You've just described transubstantiation.
And yet I did not use substance/accident language.
So you object to the words themselves, not the meaning of the words?
Here's what The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"The Catholic Church...bases her doctrine on the everlasting philosophy of sound reason, which rightly distinguishes between the thing in itself and its characteristic qualities (color, form, size, etc.)."

That's a fine philosophical way of understanding the Real Presence, but I object to declaring that the Real Presence must be understood in only this way (that is, by supposing a "thing in itself" separable from a "thing as it appears").
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 01:16:59 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.
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 #109 on: October 29, 2012, 02:24:05 PM »

Did Jesus say "My body is in the bread"? Did He say "My blood is present within this wine"? No. He said "This is my body" and "this is my blood." At the Mass, the bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what transubstantiation means. How does this differ with what Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox believe?

It is easy for the Eastern Orthodox to just say "real presence" and leave it at that. You didn't have to deal with a plethora of Protestant heresies attacking the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.

I don't see why someone has to believe the bread and wine are now the Body and Blood, and that bread and wine aren't there anymore. I see no problem with a Christian believing that they are partaking of bread and wine, so long as they understand they are also partaking of the true, real Body and Blood of Christ. I also don't see a problem with believing as you state. The importance is that they confess the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. That's all.

I understand that the West had to deal with Protestantism, and we did not. However, I believe there are ways to affirm the Real Presence without believing in transubstantiation.

You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?

It doesn't "prove" transubstantiation. It makes it a valid approach to speaking about the Real Presence, but that isn't the only opinion that still affirms the Real Presence in an orthodox manner. And, for the record, I don't find transubstantiation outlandish or difficult to understand, I just find other explanations to be equally acceptable. I have no qualms with the teaching itself, I have qualms with that fact that it is a dogma.
You say that believing that one is receiving bread and wine in the Eucharist is acceptable as long as they also believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. However, this is what Lutherans believe. Aren't there former Lutherans on here who have talked about having to renounce such a believe when they entered the Orthodox Church? I'm thinking ialmisry has said this before, but I may be mistaken. If it is an acceptable and orthodox view of the Eucharist, why would the Orthodox Church require one to renounce it before entering Orthodoxy?

What I describe is consubstantiation, which is believed by many to be what Lutherans teach, however this is not true. Some Lutherans even get upset if you say they believe in consubstantiation. Lutheranism teaches "Sacramental Union", which is very different. I spoke to this question in this very thread, with Papist. Here it is:

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

Transubstantiation 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?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantiation. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantiation, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantiation simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantiation, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantiation, however, seems Orthodox to me.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #110 on: October 29, 2012, 02:31:59 PM »


"The Catholic Church...bases her doctrine on the everlasting philosophy of sound reason, which rightly distinguishes between the thing in itself and its characteristic qualities (color, form, size, etc.)."

That's a fine philosophical way of understanding the Real Presence, but I object to declaring that the Real Presence must be understood in only this way (that is, by supposing a "thing in itself" separable from a "thing as it appears").


And here's where they go wrong.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #111 on: October 29, 2012, 02:55:31 PM »

Those Orthodox who are disinclined to accept the philosophical language of transubstantiation need to be able to explain why they are willing to accept the philosophical language canonized by the ecumenical councils with regard to Christology. Many of the objections being made here to the language of transubstantiation are pretty much identical to the objections made to the use of 'homoousios' in the creed.......


Also, I'm surprised that no one has brought up the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which explicitly endorses transubstantiation....
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #112 on: October 29, 2012, 03:00:20 PM »

You do know that the meaning of hypostasis as used by Aristotle is very, very, very different than that used at Ephesus and Chalcedon? And do you really have to bring up some document written in the Western Captivity?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 03:00:44 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #113 on: October 29, 2012, 03:02:30 PM »

You do know that the meaning of hypostasis as used by Aristotle is very, very, very different than that used at Ephesus and Chalcedon? And do you really have to bring up some document written in the Western Captivity?

What's your point? Let's agree to read the Latin dogma of transubstantiation on the basis of the philosophy found in St John of Damascus' Dialectica....


Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #114 on: October 29, 2012, 03:07:50 PM »

You do know that the meaning of hypostasis as used by Aristotle is very, very, very different than that used at Ephesus and Chalcedon? And do you really have to bring up some document written in the Western Captivity?

What's your point? Let's agree to read the Latin dogma of transubstantiation on the basis of the philosophy found in St John of Damascus' Dialectica....


Why not use St. Cyril's Catechetical Instructions instead?
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #115 on: October 29, 2012, 03:08:10 PM »

Quote from: Samn!
Also, I'm surprised that no one has brought up the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which explicitly endorses transubstantiation....
I couldn't find an English translation of the Council, but here is what CCEL's summary said about how the Council talked about the Real Presence [italics added]:

"The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it; but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place."
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.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #116 on: October 29, 2012, 03:17:12 PM »

Quote
Why not use St. Cyril's Catechetical Instructions instead?


The Dialectica gives detailed explanations of how the Fathers understand all the technical vocabulary of the Aristotelian tradition. The notion that the Fathers didn't creatively use Aristotle and Porphyry has no basis in history, and it's somewhat absurd when Orthodox attack Latin scholasticism without an understanding of scholasticism in their own tradition....

Which is why I don't understand why transubstantiation can be considered too 'philosophical' or too 'Aristotelian' a notion. The understanding of 'ousia' and 'symbebekos' in the Dialectica is identical to the understanding of 'substantia' and 'accidens' as they are normally used to explain this dogma.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 03:19:20 PM by Samn! » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #117 on: October 29, 2012, 04:09:49 PM »

Did Jesus say "My body is in the bread"? Did He say "My blood is present within this wine"? No. He said "This is my body" and "this is my blood." At the Mass, the bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what transubstantiation means. How does this differ with what Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox believe?

It is easy for the Eastern Orthodox to just say "real presence" and leave it at that. You didn't have to deal with a plethora of Protestant heresies attacking the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is merely a term to clarify what the Church has always believed about the Eucharist: that a real and complete change has taken place.

I don't see why someone has to believe the bread and wine are now the Body and Blood, and that bread and wine aren't there anymore. I see no problem with a Christian believing that they are partaking of bread and wine, so long as they understand they are also partaking of the true, real Body and Blood of Christ. I also don't see a problem with believing as you state. The importance is that they confess the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. That's all.

I understand that the West had to deal with Protestantism, and we did not. However, I believe there are ways to affirm the Real Presence without believing in transubstantiation.

You speak of it as if it is an outlandish concept that is hard to grasp. It isn't. If it is true that "what the thing is" and "what the thing appears to be" are one and the same and inseparable then that would mean one of two things, either A. the Eucharist should always appear to be flesh and blood at every liturgy since a real change has taken place (which we know does not happen), or B. the Eucharist isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ. The very fact that we know by our faith that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ but still retains all of the physical aspects of bread and wine proves transubstantiation. What's the issue? Do you just not like the word?

It doesn't "prove" transubstantiation. It makes it a valid approach to speaking about the Real Presence, but that isn't the only opinion that still affirms the Real Presence in an orthodox manner. And, for the record, I don't find transubstantiation outlandish or difficult to understand, I just find other explanations to be equally acceptable. I have no qualms with the teaching itself, I have qualms with that fact that it is a dogma.
You say that believing that one is receiving bread and wine in the Eucharist is acceptable as long as they also believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. However, this is what Lutherans believe. Aren't there former Lutherans on here who have talked about having to renounce such a believe when they entered the Orthodox Church? I'm thinking ialmisry has said this before, but I may be mistaken. If it is an acceptable and orthodox view of the Eucharist, why would the Orthodox Church require one to renounce it before entering Orthodoxy?

What I describe is consubstantiation, which is believed by many to be what Lutherans teach, however this is not true. Some Lutherans even get upset if you say they believe in consubstantiation. Lutheranism teaches "Sacramental Union", which is very different. I spoke to this question in this very thread, with Papist. Here it is:

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

Transubstantiation 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?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantiation. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantiation, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantiation simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantiation, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantiation, however, seems Orthodox to me.
I am quite aware that Lutherans use the term "Sacramental Union" to describe their Eucharistic theology. I went to a Lutheran School from the sixth to the eighth grade, and have read their Eucharistic theology in Luther's Small Catechism. What I do not see is how their belief in "Sacramental Union" is any different from consubstantiation, other than perhaps slightly different wording. They believe that the bread and wine remain along with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is exactly what consubstantiation is. How could consubstantiation be considered compatible with Orthodoxy and not Sacramental Union? Why would consubstantiation be considered an acceptable opinion while Sacramental Union is considered heretical and must be renounced?
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #118 on: October 29, 2012, 04:48:02 PM »

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

I am not quite sure that Consubstantiation is Orthodox teaching, because it affirms that there is both the substance of bread and Body, wine and Blood.  Christ is not joined by essence or even hypostasis to the Bread and Wine, rather they become His Body and Blood, through metousiosis.  Ethiopian Fathers have explained to me that the Holy Communion only appears as bread and wine, but there is no longer bread nor wine, but the Living and Glorious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Consubstantiation tries to explain why the Holy Communion remains bread and wine, by suggesting that Christ is joined to them, either by essence (doubtful) or hypostasis (illogical) so as to explain how we do not see Human Flesh and Blood on the altar.  It is a pseudo-scientific explanation, but such is a Mystery. police  Metousiosis is a simplistic explanation, there was bread and wine, there becomes the Body and Blood substantively.  This is both by essence and hypostasis, as no essence can exist without a manifested form (hypostasis) and no hypostasis can exist without a defining essence/nature.  The Holy Communion IS Jesus Christ, so how could He also be by essence or substance bread and water?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 04:49:11 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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #119 on: October 29, 2012, 06:30:15 PM »

I still think it is best to focus upon what is the common teaching of the Church from the earliest times, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ by being consecrated during the anaphora, and not worry about how this can be so.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #120 on: October 29, 2012, 07:24:18 PM »

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

I am not quite sure that Consubstantiation is Orthodox teaching, because it affirms that there is both the substance of bread and Body, wine and Blood.  Christ is not joined by essence or even hypostasis to the Bread and Wine, rather they become His Body and Blood, through metousiosis.  Ethiopian Fathers have explained to me that the Holy Communion only appears as bread and wine, but there is no longer bread nor wine, but the Living and Glorious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Consubstantiation tries to explain why the Holy Communion remains bread and wine, by suggesting that Christ is joined to them, either by essence (doubtful) or hypostasis (illogical) so as to explain how we do not see Human Flesh and Blood on the altar.  It is a pseudo-scientific explanation, but such is a Mystery. police  Metousiosis is a simplistic explanation, there was bread and wine, there becomes the Body and Blood substantively.  This is both by essence and hypostasis, as no essence can exist without a manifested form (hypostasis) and no hypostasis can exist without a defining essence/nature.  The Holy Communion IS Jesus Christ, so how could He also be by essence or substance bread and water?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Great post. It sounds as if the Ethiopian Orthodox Eucharistic theology is essentially the same as ours. A full change has taken place, and the gifts are no longer bread and wine, but fully and entirely the Body and Blood of Christ. I always thought that this was the Eastern Orthodox position as well, but after having participated in this thread I am a bit confused what the Eastern Orthodox believe about the Eucharist. Both consubstantiation and Sacramental Union teach that the bread and wine remain along with the Body and Blood of Christ. I cannot wrap my head around why the Eastern Orthodox Church would consider either teaching anything less than heretical.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #121 on: October 29, 2012, 07:35:18 PM »

Those Orthodox who are disinclined to accept the philosophical language of transubstantiation need to be able to explain why they are willing to accept the philosophical language canonized by the ecumenical councils with regard to Christology. Many of the objections being made here to the language of transubstantiation are pretty much identical to the objections made to the use of 'homoousios' in the creed.......


Also, I'm surprised that no one has brought up the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which explicitly endorses transubstantiation....

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe no council accepted by the Orthodox (and thus the Fathers of the Council are Orthodox) ever taught us that we should ascribe to one way of understanding a mystery of our faith.  They may talk using theological language to explain the issue at hand and to clarify what the belief is, but they never hold anyone to exclusively use such language when stating what the Orthodox belief is.

Contrary is the Catholic Church at Trent saying that one must believe in Transubstantiation.  Meaning even if you believe in the Real Presence, if you do not subscribe to the philosophical explanation of Transubstantiation, then you are anathemized.

That is the point of contention.  Transubstantiation is one really good way to explain what goes on in the Eucharist and why it still looks like bread and wine.  Even the Orthodox would accept that.  The problem is, why is that essential to belief?  Why can't someone just accept that the bread and wine is no longer and only the body and blood of Christ are there, and not be cursed?
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #122 on: October 29, 2012, 07:35:31 PM »

Good to see you posting again Wyatt. How have you been?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #123 on: October 29, 2012, 07:37:47 PM »

I still think it is best to focus upon what is the common teaching of the Church from the earliest times, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ by being consecrated during the anaphora, and not worry about how this can be so.
I have always enjoyed reading your posts, and I think you posted on another Christian forum that I can't seem to recall (Maybe ByzCath).

Anyway, just a quick question. You are Melkite Catholic right? I am curious as to how you can venerate St. John Maximovitch since he is a saint in the Orthodox Church? Or maybe your Faith thing is confusing me.

I mean no offense.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 29, 2012, 07:48:08 PM »

I still think it is best to focus upon what is the common teaching of the Church from the earliest times, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ by being consecrated during the anaphora, and not worry about how this can be so.
I have always enjoyed reading your posts, and I think you posted on another Christian forum that I can't seem to recall (Maybe ByzCath).

Anyway, just a quick question. You are Melkite Catholic right? I am curious as to how you can venerate St. John Maximovitch since he is a saint in the Orthodox Church? Or maybe your Faith thing is confusing me.

I mean no offense.
No offense taken.  And yes, I am a Melkite Catholic, and I do venerate St. John Maximovitch because I believe that he is a saint.  I've seen and venerate his relics, which are enshrined at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco about 45 minutes away from where I live.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #125 on: October 29, 2012, 07:49:50 PM »

I still think it is best to focus upon what is the common teaching of the Church from the earliest times, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ by being consecrated during the anaphora, and not worry about how this can be so.
I have always enjoyed reading your posts, and I think you posted on another Christian forum that I can't seem to recall (Maybe ByzCath).

Anyway, just a quick question. You are Melkite Catholic right? I am curious as to how you can venerate St. John Maximovitch since he is a saint in the Orthodox Church? Or maybe your Faith thing is confusing me.

I mean no offense.
No offense taken.  And yes, I am a Melkite Catholic, and I do venerate St. John Maximovitch because I believe that he is a saint.  I've seen and venerate his relics, which are enshrined at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco about 45 minutes away from where I live.
Maybe this could be a discussion made privately, but I am interested in what is stopping you from becoming a member in the Orthodox Church. I ask you because I genuinely value your thoughts and opinions.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #126 on: October 29, 2012, 08:02:47 PM »

I still think it is best to focus upon what is the common teaching of the Church from the earliest times, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ by being consecrated during the anaphora, and not worry about how this can be so.
I have always enjoyed reading your posts, and I think you posted on another Christian forum that I can't seem to recall (Maybe ByzCath).

Anyway, just a quick question. You are Melkite Catholic right? I am curious as to how you can venerate St. John Maximovitch since he is a saint in the Orthodox Church? Or maybe your Faith thing is confusing me.

I mean no offense.
No offense taken.  And yes, I am a Melkite Catholic, and I do venerate St. John Maximovitch because I believe that he is a saint.  I've seen and venerate his relics, which are enshrined at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco about 45 minutes away from where I live.
Maybe this could be a discussion made privately, but I am interested in what is stopping you from becoming a member in the Orthodox Church. I ask you because I genuinely value your thoughts and opinions.
Although I have never stated publicly my reasons for remaining Melkite Catholic, beyond the obvious, which is that I am attached the Melkite Church (and I am even attached to the Ruthenian mission that I attend once a month).  I remain Eastern Catholic because I hold a very traditional viewpoint on matters related to sexual ethics, and some of the Orthodox Christians I have associated with over the years hold views that I cannot in good conscience agree with, and so I remain Melkite Catholic.  There is one other thing that keeps me Eastern Catholic, something of a very personal nature, and that is the recent (i.e., back in July) conversion of my dearly departed mother to the Ruthenian Catholic Church.  She suffered terribly from emphysema, and eventually died (9th of August 2012) from the disease, and I was her caregiver for more than seven years.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #127 on: October 29, 2012, 08:05:45 PM »

I still think it is best to focus upon what is the common teaching of the Church from the earliest times, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ by being consecrated during the anaphora, and not worry about how this can be so.
I have always enjoyed reading your posts, and I think you posted on another Christian forum that I can't seem to recall (Maybe ByzCath).

Anyway, just a quick question. You are Melkite Catholic right? I am curious as to how you can venerate St. John Maximovitch since he is a saint in the Orthodox Church? Or maybe your Faith thing is confusing me.

I mean no offense.
No offense taken.  And yes, I am a Melkite Catholic, and I do venerate St. John Maximovitch because I believe that he is a saint.  I've seen and venerate his relics, which are enshrined at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco about 45 minutes away from where I live.
Maybe this could be a discussion made privately, but I am interested in what is stopping you from becoming a member in the Orthodox Church. I ask you because I genuinely value your thoughts and opinions.
Although I have never stated publicly my reasons for remaining Melkite Catholic, beyond the obvious, which is that I am attached the Melkite Church (and I am even attached to the Ruthenian mission that I attend once a month).  I remain Eastern Catholic because I hold a very traditional viewpoint on matters related to sexual ethics, and some of the Orthodox Christians I have associated with over the years hold views that I cannot in good conscience agree with, and so I remain Melkite Catholic.  There is one other thing that keeps me Eastern Catholic, something of a very personal nature, and that is the recent (i.e., back in July) conversion of my dearly departed mother to the Ruthenian Catholic Church.  She suffered terribly from emphysema, and eventually died (9th of August 2012) from the disease, and I was her caregiver for more than seven years.
Lord have mercy on you and may her memory be eternal!

I apologize for trying to pry into your reasons, since they are private. However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #128 on: October 29, 2012, 08:12:32 PM »

Maybe this could be a discussion made privately, but I am interested in what is stopping you from becoming a member in the Orthodox Church. I ask you because I genuinely value your thoughts and opinions.
Although I have never stated publicly my reasons for remaining Melkite Catholic, beyond the obvious, which is that I am attached the Melkite Church (and I am even attached to the Ruthenian mission that I attend once a month).  I remain Eastern Catholic because I hold a very traditional viewpoint on matters related to sexual ethics, and some of the Orthodox Christians I have associated with over the years hold views that I cannot in good conscience agree with, and so I remain Melkite Catholic.  There is one other thing that keeps me Eastern Catholic, something of a very personal nature, and that is the recent (i.e., back in July) conversion of my dearly departed mother to the Ruthenian Catholic Church.  She suffered terribly from emphysema, and eventually died (9th of August 2012) from the disease, and I was her caregiver for more than seven years.
Lord have mercy on you and may her memory be eternal!
Thank you.  I appreciate your concern and prayers for my mother.  She was a good Christian woman.

I apologize for trying to pry into your reasons, since they are private. However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
There is no reason to apologize.  My reasons (except for the one connected to my mother) are not private or even secret, I just had never stated them publicly on an internet forum.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #129 on: October 29, 2012, 08:13:46 PM »

However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?

My guess is that divorce and contraceptives are an option for the Orthodox even though it is by ekonomia.  Both are non-negotiable for the Catholic Church (we all know the issues about annulments, but let us not go there).
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #130 on: October 29, 2012, 08:18:07 PM »

However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
It is not so much about not being as "conservative" as Melkites (or as conservative as me, for that matter), it is simply that I reject the use of artificial contraception.  But I suppose I should also point out that I am not enamored of natural family planning either. 

I support the marital fast, but the meaning of the marital fast, and its proper purpose or end, is not about spacing births; instead, it is focused upon the growth of the married couple in the spiritual life through self-discipline and prayer, or to put it another way, its purpose is theosis, which is what all human activity should be directed toward.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 08:19:52 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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 #131 on: October 29, 2012, 08:24:10 PM »

I am quite aware that Lutherans use the term "Sacramental Union" to describe their Eucharistic theology. I went to a Lutheran School from the sixth to the eighth grade, and have read their Eucharistic theology in Luther's Small Catechism. What I do not see is how their belief in "Sacramental Union" is any different from consubstantiation, other than perhaps slightly different wording. They believe that the bread and wine remain along with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is exactly what consubstantiation is. How could consubstantiation be considered compatible with Orthodoxy and not Sacramental Union? Why would consubstantiation be considered an acceptable opinion while Sacramental Union is considered heretical and must be renounced?

From the Lutherans I know, they tell me that Sacramental Union absolutely =/= Consubstantiation. With the former, Christ somehow exists "around" the Bread and Wine. Consubstantiation confesses that the Body is also still bread, and the Blood is also still wine. Both are present. These are very different things.

I still think it is best to focus upon what is the common teaching of the Church from the earliest times, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ by being consecrated during the anaphora, and not worry about how this can be so.

I agree. My issue is not with Transubstantiation. It's perfectly acceptable. But, it should not be dogma.
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 #132 on: October 29, 2012, 08:33:44 PM »

However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
It is not so much about not being as "conservative" as Melkites (or as conservative as me, for that matter), it is simply that I reject the use of artificial contraception.  But I suppose I should also point out that I am not enamored of natural family planning either. 

I support the marital fast, but the meaning of the marital fast, and its proper purpose or end, is not about spacing births; instead, it is focused upon the growth of the married couple in the spiritual life through self-discipline and prayer, or to put it another way, its purpose is theosis, which is what all human activity should be directed toward.

I agree with your point but I am sympathetic to the Orthodox approach.  Not everyone can just fast right off the bat.  It's like asking an alcoholic to just stop drinking just like that, or a smoker to just stop smoking.  There is a goal and it should be worked on little by little.  I hope priests use ekonomia in the correct sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who just approves contraception left and right.  But the same can be found in the Catholic Church.  There are priests out there who would just come up with their own teaching right there and then to make the couple not feel slighted.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #133 on: October 29, 2012, 08:39:51 PM »

However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
It is not so much about not being as "conservative" as Melkites (or as conservative as me, for that matter), it is simply that I reject the use of artificial contraception.  But I suppose I should also point out that I am not enamored of natural family planning either. 

I support the marital fast, but the meaning of the marital fast, and its proper purpose or end, is not about spacing births; instead, it is focused upon the growth of the married couple in the spiritual life through self-discipline and prayer, or to put it another way, its purpose is theosis, which is what all human activity should be directed toward.

I agree with your point but I am sympathetic to the Orthodox approach.  Not everyone can just fast right off the bat.  It's like asking an alcoholic to just stop drinking just like that, or a smoker to just stop smoking.  There is a goal and it should be worked on little by little.  I hope priests use ekonomia in the correct sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who just approves contraception left and right.  But the same can be found in the Catholic Church.  There are priests out there who would just come up with their own teaching right there and then to make the couple not feel slighted.
But everyone should be striving for that self-discipline, and oikonomia is not the norm, nor does it abrogate the canons and tradition of the Church, even though some people present it in that manner. 

I have no problem with a spiritual father, who - for the sake of the good of the married couple to whom he is giving spiritual guidance - applies oikonomia for a period of time so that the couple does not lose faith, but oikonomia is not a permission to sin in order to make things easier.  We all must take up our cross as Christ said.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #134 on: October 29, 2012, 08:42:39 PM »

However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
It is not so much about not being as "conservative" as Melkites (or as conservative as me, for that matter), it is simply that I reject the use of artificial contraception.  But I suppose I should also point out that I am not enamored of natural family planning either. 

I support the marital fast, but the meaning of the marital fast, and its proper purpose or end, is not about spacing births; instead, it is focused upon the growth of the married couple in the spiritual life through self-discipline and prayer, or to put it another way, its purpose is theosis, which is what all human activity should be directed toward.

I agree with your point but I am sympathetic to the Orthodox approach.  Not everyone can just fast right off the bat.  It's like asking an alcoholic to just stop drinking just like that, or a smoker to just stop smoking.  There is a goal and it should be worked on little by little.  I hope priests use ekonomia in the correct sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who just approves contraception left and right.  But the same can be found in the Catholic Church.  There are priests out there who would just come up with their own teaching right there and then to make the couple not feel slighted.
But everyone should be striving for that self-discipline, and oikonomia is not the norm, nor does it abrogate the canons and tradition of the Church, even though some people present it in that manner. 

I have no problem with a spiritual father, who - for the sake of the good of the married couple to whom he is giving spiritual guidance - applies oikonomia for a period of time so that the couple does not lose faith, but oikonomia is not a permission to sin in order to make things easier.  We all must take up our cross as Christ said.

Sorry if I didn't present it in the way you did.  But I agree with your point.  Like I said, there is a goal, and ekonomia should be something that helps them to get to that goal.  As with quitting smoking or recovering from alcoholism, it must be a gradual withdrawal.  Most people are incapable of just stopping.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #135 on: October 29, 2012, 08:47:55 PM »

However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
It is not so much about not being as "conservative" as Melkites (or as conservative as me, for that matter), it is simply that I reject the use of artificial contraception.  But I suppose I should also point out that I am not enamored of natural family planning either. 

I support the marital fast, but the meaning of the marital fast, and its proper purpose or end, is not about spacing births; instead, it is focused upon the growth of the married couple in the spiritual life through self-discipline and prayer, or to put it another way, its purpose is theosis, which is what all human activity should be directed toward.

I agree with your point but I am sympathetic to the Orthodox approach.  Not everyone can just fast right off the bat.  It's like asking an alcoholic to just stop drinking just like that, or a smoker to just stop smoking.  There is a goal and it should be worked on little by little.  I hope priests use ekonomia in the correct sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who just approves contraception left and right.  But the same can be found in the Catholic Church.  There are priests out there who would just come up with their own teaching right there and then to make the couple not feel slighted.
But everyone should be striving for that self-discipline, and oikonomia is not the norm, nor does it abrogate the canons and tradition of the Church, even though some people present it in that manner. 

I have no problem with a spiritual father, who - for the sake of the good of the married couple to whom he is giving spiritual guidance - applies oikonomia for a period of time so that the couple does not lose faith, but oikonomia is not a permission to sin in order to make things easier.  We all must take up our cross as Christ said.

Sorry if I didn't present it in the way you did.  But I agree with your point.  Like I said, there is a goal, and ekonomia should be something that helps them to get to that goal.  As with quitting smoking or recovering from alcoholism, it must be a gradual withdrawal.  Most people are incapable of just stopping.
Yes, I think we are in basic agreement, but I have seen things presented in such a way that oikonomia sounds like permission to sin.  I mean, I am a single man, and I certainly would not go to my spiritual father and ask for permission to fornicate because abstinence from sexual activity is difficult, and it would be easier for me to simply have sex.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 08:48:17 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #136 on: October 29, 2012, 09:34:10 PM »

Good to see you posting again Wyatt. How have you been?
Thanks. I've been doing pretty well. How are you?
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #137 on: October 29, 2012, 09:35:00 PM »

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

However your mention of sexual ethics is very interesting, are you saying we are not as conservative as the Melkites are?
It is not so much about not being as "conservative" as Melkites (or as conservative as me, for that matter), it is simply that I reject the use of artificial contraception.  But I suppose I should also point out that I am not enamored of natural family planning either. 

I support the marital fast, but the meaning of the marital fast, and its proper purpose or end, is not about spacing births; instead, it is focused upon the growth of the married couple in the spiritual life through self-discipline and prayer, or to put it another way, its purpose is theosis, which is what all human activity should be directed toward.

I agree with your point but I am sympathetic to the Orthodox approach.  Not everyone can just fast right off the bat.  It's like asking an alcoholic to just stop drinking just like that, or a smoker to just stop smoking.  There is a goal and it should be worked on little by little.  I hope priests use ekonomia in the correct sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who just approves contraception left and right.  But the same can be found in the Catholic Church.  There are priests out there who would just come up with their own teaching right there and then to make the couple not feel slighted.
But everyone should be striving for that self-discipline, and oikonomia is not the norm, nor does it abrogate the canons and tradition of the Church, even though some people present it in that manner. 

I have no problem with a spiritual father, who - for the sake of the good of the married couple to whom he is giving spiritual guidance - applies oikonomia for a period of time so that the couple does not lose faith, but oikonomia is not a permission to sin in order to make things easier.  We all must take up our cross as Christ said.

Sorry if I didn't present it in the way you did.  But I agree with your point.  Like I said, there is a goal, and ekonomia should be something that helps them to get to that goal.  As with quitting smoking or recovering from alcoholism, it must be a gradual withdrawal.  Most people are incapable of just stopping.
Yes, I think we are in basic agreement, but I have seen things presented in such a way that oikonomia sounds like permission to sin.  I mean, I am a single man, and I certainly would not go to my spiritual father and ask for permission to fornicate because abstinence from sexual activity is difficult, and it would be easier for me to simply have sex.

We don't ask our Spiritual Fathers for permission, but absolution. True, in the Orthodox approach, our fathers are not dogmatic as to how to apply the Canons on an individual, case by case basis.  Our Fathers understand each individual person's struggles and where they are at according to spiritual maturity, and so they may appear more lenient in what they absolve in Confession from time to time from the outside.  Our fathers have this "leniency" not because they tolerate sin, but because we are more in tune with the the gradual process of spiritual healing.  The Latin approach from the Orthodox perspective, sometimes comes across as too legalistic.  To be sure, Orthodox and Catholic have identical goals and ideals, its our approach and delivery that is variable.

I think the difference between Transubstantiation as a Latin dogma and Metousiosis as an Orthodox doctrine is highly symbolic of this divide in approach between the two groups. We are not just saying the same thing in different ways, we are approaching the same thing through varying approaches.

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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #138 on: October 29, 2012, 09:45:32 PM »

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

We don't ask our Spiritual Fathers for permission, but absolution. True, in the Orthodox approach, our fathers are not dogmatic as to how to apply the Canons on an individual, case by case basis.  Our Fathers understand each individual person's struggles and where they are at according to spiritual maturity, and so they may appear more lenient in what they absolve in Confession from time to time from the outside.  Our fathers have this "leniency" not because they tolerate sin, but because we are more in tune with the the gradual process of spiritual healing.  The Latin approach from the Orthodox perspective, sometimes comes across as too legalistic.  To be sure, Orthodox and Catholic have identical goals and ideals, its our approach and delivery that is variable.
I have no problem with a spiritual father giving guidance to a married couple, and even applying oikonomia in particular instances, but sometimes the way oikonomia has been presented on various internet fora is that it functions as a kind of permission to sin, rather than being - as it truly is - a temporary measure applied to help a couple grow in self-discipline. 

I think the difference between Transubstantiation as a Latin dogma and Metousiosis as an Orthodox doctrine is highly symbolic of this divide in approach between the two groups. We are not just saying the same thing in different ways, we are approaching the same thing through varying approaches.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I do not think, and this is just my personal take on the issue, that describing how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is all that important.  What is important is that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ, and that the reception of communion conveys to us the grace of theosis.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 09:50:56 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #139 on: October 29, 2012, 09:49:05 PM »

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



We don't ask our Spiritual Fathers for permission, but absolution. True, in the Orthodox approach, our fathers are not dogmatic as to how to apply the Canons on an individual, case by case basis.  Our Fathers understand each individual person's struggles and where they are at according to spiritual maturity, and so they may appear more lenient in what they absolve in Confession from time to time from the outside.  Our fathers have this "leniency" not because they tolerate sin, but because we are more in tune with the the gradual process of spiritual healing.  The Latin approach from the Orthodox perspective, sometimes comes across as too legalistic.  To be sure, Orthodox and Catholic have identical goals and ideals, its our approach and delivery that is variable.
I have no problem with a spiritual father giving guidance to a married couple, and even applying oikonomia in particular instances, but sometimes the way oikonomia has been presented on various internet fora is that it like a permission to sin, rather than a means toward growth in self-discipline.  



The first rule of Orthodox is you don't trust internet interpretations of Orthodox.

The second rule of Orthodox is you don't trust internet interpretations of Orthodox.

As we always say, ask a priest (e.g. in person)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 09:50:32 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #140 on: October 29, 2012, 09:54:49 PM »

I do not think, and this is just my personal take on the issue, that describing how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is all that important.  What is important is that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ, and that the reception of communion conveys to us the grace of theosis.
Transubstantiation does not deal with the "how," it deals with "what." What actually takes place is not that Christ's Body and Blood are united with the bread and wine, nor is His Body and Blood in, with, around, above, or below the bread and wine. The bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into His Body and Blood. Nowhere in that teaching is the "how" addressed. The "how" is quite simply a mystery. The most we can say is that the transformation takes place through the action of the Holy Spirit working through the man at the altar who has received Holy Orders. Understanding the "what" is very important though, because it distinguishes orthodox Eucharistic theology from all the nuances of Protestant heresies.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #141 on: October 29, 2012, 09:58:50 PM »

I do not think, and this is just my personal take on the issue, that describing how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is all that important.  What is important is that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ, and that the reception of communion conveys to us the grace of theosis.
Transubstantiation does not deal with the "how," it deals with "what." What actually takes place is not that Christ's Body and Blood are united with the bread and wine, nor is His Body and Blood in, with, around, above, or below the bread and wine. The bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into His Body and Blood. Nowhere in that teaching is the "how" addressed. The "how" is quite simply a mystery. The most we can say is that the transformation takes place through the action of the Holy Spirit working through the man at the altar who has received Holy Orders. Understanding the "what" is very important though, because it distinguishes orthodox Eucharistic theology from all the nuances of Protestant heresies.
Describing "how" something happens and describing "what takes place" is the same thing.  You are trying to describe how the bread and wine consecrated during the anaphora become the Body and Blood of Christ, and that really is not something that one needs to know.

A man will not be divinized because he can describe how the mystery works; instead, he is divinized by receiving the Eucharist in faith.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:02:30 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #142 on: October 29, 2012, 10:05:51 PM »

I do not think, and this is just my personal take on the issue, that describing how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is all that important.  What is important is that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ, and that the reception of communion conveys to us the grace of theosis.
Transubstantiation does not deal with the "how," it deals with "what." What actually takes place is not that Christ's Body and Blood are united with the bread and wine, nor is His Body and Blood in, with, around, above, or below the bread and wine. The bread and wine are fully and completely transformed into His Body and Blood. Nowhere in that teaching is the "how" addressed. The "how" is quite simply a mystery. The most we can say is that the transformation takes place through the action of the Holy Spirit working through the man at the altar who has received Holy Orders. Understanding the "what" is very important though, because it distinguishes orthodox Eucharistic theology from all the nuances of Protestant heresies.
"How" and "what takes place" mean the same thing.  You are trying to describe how the bread and wine consecrated during the anaphora become the Body and Blood of Christ, and that really is not something that one needs to know.
Not at all. They are entirely different. The answer to "how?" is "by the Holy Spirit." The answer to "what takes place?" is "the bread and wine are truly and fully transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ." They are no longer bread and wine. In the history of the Church, it has always become necessary to define things very precisely whenever teachings are challenged by heretics. This is exactly what the Catholic Church did when she described the teaching of the Real Presence using the term "transubstantiation." The idea of "Real Presence" became ambiguous when Protestants started inventing their own ideas about what exactly takes place at the altar. I'm sure if you ask many Lutherans today if they believe in the "Real Presence" they would say yes, but that does not mean they hold orthodox Eucharistic theology. In a similar way, I'm sure if someone asked Arius if he believed the Gospels he would have said yes. Didn't mean he wasn't a heretic.
Logged
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #143 on: October 29, 2012, 10:08:46 PM »

Transubstantiation does not explain the mechanism ofhow the change occurs beyond "by the Holy Spirit." What it does achieve is an unambiguous explanation of what occurs. This is a very important distinction!
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #144 on: October 29, 2012, 10:10:54 PM »

Transubstantiation does not explain the mechanism ofhow the change occurs beyond "by the Holy Spirit." What it does achieve is an unambiguous explanation of what occurs. This is a very important distinction!
Thank you. Glad someone gets it.  laugh
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #145 on: October 29, 2012, 10:15:52 PM »

Transubstantiation does not explain the mechanism ofhow the change occurs beyond "by the Holy Spirit." What it does achieve is an unambiguous explanation of what occurs. This is a very important distinction!
And there is no need to explain what occurs.  Describing the indescribable is pointless.  And subscribing to Aristotle's antiquated metaphysics is problematic.

That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood is a truth of faith, but no one can ever prove that it is so linguistically or scientifically, so why try?
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #146 on: October 29, 2012, 10:17:51 PM »

Transubstantiation does not explain the mechanism ofhow the change occurs beyond "by the Holy Spirit." What it does achieve is an unambiguous explanation of what occurs. This is a very important distinction!
What is the substance of Christ's body and blood?  The whole Aristotelian framework of substance and accidents has been found vacuous, pointless, and irrelevant.  If I subscribed to Aristotle's antiquated metaphysics the term substance in connection with the Eucharist might have some value to me, but since I do not subscribe to his view of things it really is just an empty term.  So explain to me why an Orthodox Christian should use outmoded pagan philosophy to speak about a holy mystery of faith?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:21:16 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #147 on: October 29, 2012, 10:32:54 PM »

Apotheoun, would you reject the Aristotelian language used by the Ecumenical Councils to define our Christology?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #148 on: October 29, 2012, 10:34:14 PM »

Transubstantiation does not explain the mechanism ofhow the change occurs beyond "by the Holy Spirit." What it does achieve is an unambiguous explanation of what occurs. This is a very important distinction!
And there is no need to explain what occurs.
There was a need once Protestants began wrongly explaining what occurs, just as there was a need to use very specific terms to describe Christological and Trinitarian theology after Arianism began to increase in popularity. Simply saying things are mysteries of our faith that defy explanation is all well and good, but in the midst of heresy, precision becomes necessary.

Describing the indescribable is pointless.  And subscribing to Aristotle's antiquated metaphysics is problematic.
What takes place in the Eucharist is quite describable.

That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood is a truth of faith, but no one can ever prove that it is so linguistically or scientifically, so why try?
Who's talking about proving? You cannot prove to anyone what the Eucharist is. That is where faith comes in. Proving and describing are two different things. I could thoroughly describe the Holy Trinity to someone, but I cannot prove the existence of the Holy Trinity to someone who doesn't believe. Transubstantiation isn't about proving scientifically. I am beginning to wonder if you are actually opposed to transubstantiation because I don't think you have a grasp on what it actually means.

What is the substance of Christ's body and blood?
Beats me. Who is asking? no...even better.........who is claiming to have an answer?

The whole Aristotelian framework of substance and accidents has been found vacuous, pointless, and irrelevant.
By whom?

If I subscribed to Aristotle's antiquated metaphysics the term substance in connection with the Eucharist might have some value to me, but since I do not subscribe to his view of things it really is just an empty term.
We are using terms used by Aristotle as tools to describe our faith. Nothing more.

So explain to me why an Orthodox Christian should use outmoded pagan philosophy to speak about a holy mystery of faith?
Who's saying they should? If "Real Presence" is good enough for them, whatever. We didn't have the luxury here in the West once Luther opened Pandora's box. "Real Presence" isn't as meaningful once various Protestant groups claim to profess it and yet nevertheless believe something quite different than orthodox Eucharistic theology.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:34:37 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #149 on: October 29, 2012, 10:44:16 PM »

I wonder how the Orthodox Church would react if I was a member but I said I disagreed with the overly specific terms used for the Trinity? Hey...guys, sounds too scientific, legalistic, and unnecessarily philosophical to me. Can't we just agree that God is a mystery and leave it at that?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:46:29 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #150 on: October 29, 2012, 10:51:52 PM »

I wonder how the Orthodox Church would react if I was a member but I said I disagreed with the overly specific terms used for the Trinity? Hey...guys, sounds too scientific, legalistic, and unnecessarily philosophical to me. Can't we just agree that God is a mystery and leave it at that?
Welcome to the rest of the laity. Cheesy

All joking aside, it really is a mystery and any attempts we try to construct using language for the Trinity are not sufficient. But an understanding of the Trinity may be important in how we define say, love, for example or the Incarnation.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
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 #151 on: October 29, 2012, 10:55:05 PM »

I wonder how the Orthodox Church would react if I was a member but I said I disagreed with the overly specific terms used for the Trinity? Hey...guys, sounds too scientific, legalistic, and unnecessarily philosophical to me. Can't we just agree that God is a mystery and leave it at that?

Simply not the same. Besides, you all believe all of that, too. Or don't you?

The definitions of the PRE-SCHISM Catholic Church (East and West) assert the deity of Christ in the face of heresy. Transubstantiation goes above and beyond this. I understand the need to affirm the Real Presence in the face of the Protestant heresy. However, essence/accidents language is not necessary to uphold belief in the Real Presence. It is one valid manner in which to discuss it, but it should not be dogma.

I can easily confess that the Eucharist is truly, physically the Body and Blood of Christ. Not merely in "spirit", nor is it a memorial, but when I partake of the Eucharist, I eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. I have not used your essence/accidents language. Would you anathematize me for this?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:55:57 PM by Benjamin the Red » 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
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #152 on: October 29, 2012, 11:01:59 PM »

The anathema doesn't apply to using other language. It applies to rejecting transubstantiation as a valid explanation. It's one thing to say "we could also put the same explanation in these words" and other to say "transubstantiation as an explanation is false." I'm perfectly capable of explaining Orthodox Christology in terms other than used by the Ecumenical Councils. It's when I reject the Councils' explanation of the Incarnation that I fall under their anathemas.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #153 on: October 29, 2012, 11:03:24 PM »

Apotheoun, would you reject the Aristotelian language used by the Ecumenical Councils to define our Christology?
First of all, I do not believe that any of the Councils used Aristotelian metaphysics in their horoi.  Using a word is one thing, but even when the Fathers used Greek philosophical terms they gave them a new meaning, e.g., the terms ousia and hypostasis in Greek philosophy were synonyms, but the Cappadocians changed them so that they stood for two different things.  So I can say with certainty that I reject now, and always will reject, any "Christology" that embraces Aristotelian metaphysics.  But of course none of the Councils adopted Aristotelian metaphysics as a standard for Christian theology; in fact, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy condemns pagan Greek philosophy as a type of - and even as the mother of - heresy.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #154 on: October 29, 2012, 11:04:46 PM »

I wonder how the Orthodox Church would react if I was a member but I said I disagreed with the overly specific terms used for the Trinity? Hey...guys, sounds too scientific, legalistic, and unnecessarily philosophical to me. Can't we just agree that God is a mystery and leave it at that?
I think you would make a good Orthodox Christian if you rejected the terms because they were being used as a kind of "philosophical metaphysic" that describes what God is, or even how God exists.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #155 on: October 29, 2012, 11:05:56 PM »

I wonder how the Orthodox Church would react if I was a member but I said I disagreed with the overly specific terms used for the Trinity? Hey...guys, sounds too scientific, legalistic, and unnecessarily philosophical to me. Can't we just agree that God is a mystery and leave it at that?
Simply not the same. Besides, you all believe all of that, too. Or don't you?
Yes we do. I was speaking hypothetically.

The definitions of the PRE-SCHISM Catholic Church (East and West) assert the deity of Christ in the face of heresy. Transubstantiation goes above and beyond this. I understand the need to affirm the Real Presence in the face of the Protestant heresy. However, essence/accidents language is not necessary to uphold belief in the Real Presence. It is one valid manner in which to discuss it, but it should not be dogma.
It should be dogma whenever there are competing theologies, some of which also claim to be "Real Presence" theology.

I can easily confess that the Eucharist is truly, physically the Body and Blood of Christ. Not merely in "spirit", nor is it a memorial, but when I partake of the Eucharist, I eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. I have not used your essence/accidents language. Would you anathematize me for this?
Well I don't have the authority to anathematize anyone, but I doubt one would be anathematized for what you said above because you essentially professed what we mean by transubstantiation without using the words substance, accidents, or transubstantiation. I'm still confused about why those words are so taboo to the Eastern Orthodox. They just describe something you say you already believe in anyway, and they remove the ambiguity of "Real Presence" that existed after the Reformation. As I mentioned earlier, most Lutherans would probably say that their "Sacramental Union" doctrine is belief in the Real Presence too, even though it is heretical and not what Catholics or Orthodox mean by Real Presence.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #156 on: October 29, 2012, 11:06:36 PM »

The Trinitarian terms used by the Cappadocians must always be seen as apophatic in nature, that is, they are never to be understood as defining or even as describing what God is or how He exists, because God is - to put it simply - beyond created human concepts and forms of human linguistic predication.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #157 on: October 29, 2012, 11:13:56 PM »

Apotheoun, have you ever read St John of Damascus' Dialectica side-by-side with Porphyry's Isagoge? The Aristotelian philosophical tradition has never been as rigid a thing as you imagine, nor have the Fathers-- Certainly, the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils never rejected anything coming from Aristotle out-of-hand. The Neoplatonic reading of Aristotle was very much the basic assumption of the intellectual world they lived in.


Again, I'll say--- what could possibly be unacceptable about transubstantiation if we read the terms 'accidens' and 'substantia' as corresponding to 'ousia' and 'symbebekos' as defined by the Damascene?!
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 11:17:07 PM by Samn! » Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #158 on: October 29, 2012, 11:14:35 PM »

I can easily confess that the Eucharist is truly, physically the Body and Blood of Christ. Not merely in "spirit", nor is it a memorial, but when I partake of the Eucharist, I eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. I have not used your essence/accidents language. Would you anathematize me for this?
And your statement represents the belief of the ancient Church, which should be sufficient to prove your orthodoxy.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #159 on: October 29, 2012, 11:15:58 PM »

Apotheoun, have you ever read St John of Damascus' Dialectica side-by-side with Porphyry's Isagoge? The Aristotelian philosophical tradition has never been as rigid a thing as you imagine, nor have the fathers-- especially the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, rejected anything coming from Aristotle out-of-hand.
Yes, and I have read it, but where in his texts on Christ does he use Aristotelian metaphysics?  I don't know of any place that he does that.  Instead, all St. John does is regurgitate what earlier Fathers said about Christ.

Again, I'll say--- what could possibly be unacceptable about transubstantiation if we read the terms 'accidens' and 'substantia' as corresponding to 'ousia' and 'symbebekos' as defined by the Damascene?!
And again I will say that there is simply no need to use Aristotle's outmoded metaphysics when affirming the truth that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.  Moreover, why should I contradict Pope Gelasius, who said - point blank - that there is no substantial change in the elements, simply because a 16th century Roman Catholic council later said that there is a substantial change.

I think it is better to simply stick to the Apostolic Tradition and say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ without creating fantastical theories or going into endless debates about how this can be so, or what happens to make it so.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 11:27:09 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #160 on: October 29, 2012, 11:23:57 PM »

Again, I'll say--- what could possibly be unacceptable about transubstantiation if we read the terms 'accidens' and 'substantia' as corresponding to 'ousia' and 'symbebekos' as defined by the Damascene?!
Samn, as an Orthodox Christian, I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Fathers held that philosophy - not just pagan Greek philosophy, but any form of philosophy - applies only to this world, and that when we talk about God, because He is beyond created human reason, we cannot transcend the gap (diastema) between Him and us.  Perhaps you should read the "Life of Moses" by St. Gregory of Nyssa, because it would help to give you a better understanding of the place of philosophy in the life of a Christian, for what was it that St. Gregory said about Greek philosophy, ah yes, that it "is always in labor, but never gives birth."
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 11:28:36 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #161 on: October 29, 2012, 11:27:22 PM »

Again, I'll say--- what could possibly be unacceptable about transubstantiation if we read the terms 'accidens' and 'substantia' as corresponding to 'ousia' and 'symbebekos' as defined by the Damascene?!
Samn, as an Orthodox Christian, I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Fathers held that philosophy - not just pagan Greek philosophy, but any form of philosophy - applies only to this world, and that when we talk about God, He is beyond created human reason and - as a consequence - that we cannot transcend the gap (diastema) between Him and us.  Perhaps you should read the "Life of Moses" by St. Gregory of Nyssa, because it would help to give you a better understanding of the place of philosophy in the life of a Christian, because what was it that St. Gregory said about Greek philosophy, ah yes, that it "is always in labor, but never gives birth."

Human reason can explain God's energies as it interacts with us.  That is why there is an energies-essence distinction.  One is utterly knowable, the other is.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #162 on: October 29, 2012, 11:34:39 PM »

Again, I'll say--- what could possibly be unacceptable about transubstantiation if we read the terms 'accidens' and 'substantia' as corresponding to 'ousia' and 'symbebekos' as defined by the Damascene?!
Samn, as an Orthodox Christian, I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Fathers held that philosophy - not just pagan Greek philosophy, but any form of philosophy - applies only to this world, and that when we talk about God, He is beyond created human reason and - as a consequence - that we cannot transcend the gap (diastema) between Him and us.  Perhaps you should read the "Life of Moses" by St. Gregory of Nyssa, because it would help to give you a better understanding of the place of philosophy in the life of a Christian, because what was it that St. Gregory said about Greek philosophy, ah yes, that it "is always in labor, but never gives birth."

Human reason can explain God's energies as it interacts with us.  That is why there is an energies-essence distinction.  One is utterly knowable, the other is.
Even in relation to God's energies one must be careful.  God's energies come down to us, and we can thus experience them, but in conveying our experience of God there is a necessary process of distanciation that occurs between the experience and the conceptualization of the experience, and then another distanciation between our conceptualization of the experience and our linguistic description of it.  In other words, our description of God's energies are not the same as God's energies themselves, because no created concept can convey that which is uncreated.  The most that our verbal expressions can do is give those to whom we speak an inkling of what our original experience entailed.  Now I believe that that is a valuable form of knowledge, but it certainly does not define the mystery experienced.  Do you remember what St. Hilary said about our attempts to speak of God?  How he said that: "The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart."
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 11:39:20 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #163 on: October 29, 2012, 11:54:16 PM »

Quote
Yes, and I have read it, but where in his texts on Christ does he use Aristotelian metaphysics?  

Ok, so basically you neither understand what 'Aristotelian metaphysics' is, nor how the Fathers use it.

Let's take things back a bit and go to Chapter 4 of the Dialectica---


     Being is the common name for all things which are. It is divided into substance and accident. Substance is the principle of these two, because it has existence in itself and not in another. Accident, on the other hand, is that which cannot exist in itself but is found in the substance. For the substance is a subject, just as matter is of the things made out of it, whereas an accident is that which is found in the substance as in a subject. Copper, for example, and wax are substance; but shape, form and color are accidents. And a body is a substance; whereas color is an accident. For the body is certainly not in the color; rather, color is in the body. Nor is the soul in knowledge; rather, knowledge is in the soul. Nor are the copper and wax in the shape; rather, the shape is in the wax and the copper. Neither is the body said to belong to the color; rather, the color to the body. Nor does the wax belong to the shape; rather, the shape to the wax. What is more, the color and the knowledge and the shape are subject to change, whereas the body and the soul and the wax remain the same, because substance is not subject to change. Also, the substance and the matter of the body is just one thing, while there are many colors. Similarly, in the case of all other hings, the subject is substance, whereas that which is found in the substance as in a subject is accident.
     Now, substance is defined as follows: Substance is a thing which exists in itself and has no need of another for its existence. Accident, however, is that which cannot exist in itself, but has its existence in another. God, then, is substance, and so is every created thing. God, however, even though He is substance, is super-substantial. There are also substantial qualities about which we shall have something to say.


Chapter 13:

     An accident is that which may either be present or absent without destroying the subject. Again, it is that which can be or not be in the same thing. Thus, it is possible for a man to be white or not, and also for him to be tall, intelligent, flat-nosed or not. (For the presence of this does not save the species, becaust it does not belong to the definition of the species. Neither does its absence destroy the species. Thus, even though the Ethiopian is not white, this in no wise keeps him from being a man. And so, whether it is present or absent, it does not injure the subject substance-- for we have said that the substance is a subject and sort of matter for the accidents.)
     The accident is divided into two kinds: that which is commonly called a difference and that which is properly a difference. What is commonly called a difference is the seperable accident. For example, one person is seated and another standing. Now, by the standing up of the one who is seated and the sitting down of the one who is standing it is possible for the original difference between the two to be removed and replaced by another difference. And one is also said to differ from oneself by a separable accident, for one does differ from oneself by sitting down and standing, by being young and growing old, by being sick and getting well, and so forth. A difference in the proper sense is the inseparable accident. For example, a person is snub-nosed and it is impossible to separate his snub-nosedness from him, and similarly with his being grey-eyed and the like. Thus, it is by these inseparable accidents that one individual, that is, one substance, differs from another. However, one's own self never differs from oneself. Now, the accidents do not enter into the definition (of the nature), because it is possible for a man to be snub-nosed or not, and, just because a man does not have grey eyes, he remains no less a man.

Chapter 22:

Genus and accident have this in common: that they are predicated of several things. Distinguishing peculiarities of genus and accident are: that the genus is prior to the species in which the accidents subsist,whereas the accidents are posterior to the species; that the accident exists antecedently in the individuals and consequently in the species, whereas the contrary is true of the genus; and that the genera are predecated of the essence of a thing, whereas the accidents are predicated of its sort, or how the thing is.


Chapter 25:

Difference and accident have this in common:that they are both predicated of several things as to what sort they are, and that the difference and the inseparable accident are always present in the things of which they are predicated. One of the distinguishing peculiarities of difference and accident is that the differences contain and are not contained, while the accidents are contained. For, on the one hand, both contain the species, as being predicated of several species; but the difference is not contained, because the same species does not admit of contradictory differences. On the other hand, the accident is contained, for the reason that the same species and the same individual will admit of several accidents which may oftentimes even be contradictory. Other distinguishing peculiarities are:that the difference does not admit of more or less, whereas the accidents on the contrary do, and that contradictory differences may not be combined, whereas contradictory accidents may.





Now, compare all this to what is said about accidents in the Isagoge herehttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/porphyry_isagogue_02_translation.htm

1. How is St John of Damascus not 'Aristotelian', within the trends of Aristotelian neo-Platonism as exemplified by Porphyry?

2. How is transubstantiation unacceptable, if we understand the technical terms in the way defined by the Damascene?


Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #164 on: October 30, 2012, 12:00:01 AM »

That St. John wrote a book on philosophy is great, but that you think he accepted the idea that the terms he was using translated into theology is sad.  God is beyond being, and so talking about being in a philosophical text has absolutely nothing to do with God.  I guess living in the West makes even Orthodox more or less Western in their outlook.  Next thing I know you will be telling me that you - as an Orthodox Christian - believe in the analogy of being.  Wonders never cease.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #165 on: October 30, 2012, 12:06:46 AM »

Apotheoun, so you also think that the philosophical term 'homoousios' has nothing to do with God?

The Damscene says, "God, then, is substance, and so is every created thing. God, however, even though He is substance, is super-substantial." He has a rather more nuanced understanding of God as hyperousios than you're trying to argue here....

Quote
God is beyond being, and so talking about being in a philosophical text has absolutely nothing to do with God. 

So you deny that St John wrote his Dialectica in order to explain the Councils' use of Aristotelian terminology to explain the Incarnation?

Furthermore, have you ever read anything from your own Melkite tradition? Start with Theodore Abu Qurra and Abdallah ibn al-Fadl... tell me how they were "more or less Western in their outlook".

Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #166 on: October 30, 2012, 12:11:11 AM »

You seem to approach theology from a very Western perspective, because - yes - there are Fathers who say that God is essence (all the while never saying what essence is), and in fact they say that He is the essence (or better being) of all essences (beings), but they go on to say that He is also beyond essence (hyperousios), because He can even be said to be no essence.  What do they mean by this?  You seem to imply that He is an essence among essences, which is clearly false.  So perhaps rather than just quote St. John's philosophical collection, it might be helfpu if you explained - as you understand it - what he means by what He said,, because so far you appear to be able to quote texts, but you do not show that you understand them.  

I hold that what St. John is saying must be read in the light of what he says in other texts and what other Fathers say as well, and that especially important in this regard is what St. Gregory Palamas said, when he explained that "If God is being, man is not being, and if man is being, God is not being," but the way you seem to be talking about it implies an analogy of being that the Eastern Fathers (and even the pre-Augustinian Western Fathers) deny.  You seem to be implying an analogy of being, which the Fathers would reject.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 12:16:15 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #167 on: October 30, 2012, 12:17:58 AM »

But back onto the original topic, why should I as an Eastern Christian want to use Aristotelian metaphysics when talking about the Eucharist?  I do not accept that metaphysical worldview as legitimate, and in fact I see it as rather retarded.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 12:18:22 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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 #168 on: October 30, 2012, 12:20:19 AM »

The definitions of the PRE-SCHISM Catholic Church (East and West) assert the deity of Christ in the face of heresy. Transubstantiation goes above and beyond this. I understand the need to affirm the Real Presence in the face of the Protestant heresy. However, essence/accidents language is not necessary to uphold belief in the Real Presence. It is one valid manner in which to discuss it, but it should not be dogma.
It should be dogma whenever there are competing theologies, some of which also claim to be "Real Presence" theology.

Except that you accept what I said below, though it is not Transubstantiation.

I can easily confess that the Eucharist is truly, physically the Body and Blood of Christ. Not merely in "spirit", nor is it a memorial, but when I partake of the Eucharist, I eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. I have not used your essence/accidents language. Would you anathematize me for this?
Well I don't have the authority to anathematize anyone, but I doubt one would be anathematized for what you said above because you essentially professed what we mean by transubstantiation without using the words substance, accidents, or transubstantiation. I'm still confused about why those words are so taboo to the Eastern Orthodox. They just describe something you say you already believe in anyway, and they remove the ambiguity of "Real Presence" that existed after the Reformation. As I mentioned earlier, most Lutherans would probably say that their "Sacramental Union" doctrine is belief in the Real Presence too, even though it is heretical and not what Catholics or Orthodox mean by Real Presence.

I have not professed Transubstantiation in my above statement, and it is not something we dogmatically profess.

In my above statement, I did not address why the Eucharist "appears" as bread and wine...I did not even say that it ceases to be bread and wine, only that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. What I'm confessing isn't Transubstantiation, and yet you accept it as valid.


The anathema doesn't apply to using other language. It applies to rejecting transubstantiation as a valid explanation. It's one thing to say "we could also put the same explanation in these words" and other to say "transubstantiation as an explanation is false." I'm perfectly capable of explaining Orthodox Christology in terms other than used by the Ecumenical Councils. It's when I reject the Councils' explanation of the Incarnation that I fall under their anathemas.

The language certainly seems to deny what I've stated above:

Quote from: Council of Trent
Whosoever denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "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

"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