Author Topic: Transubstantation?  (Read 10230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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. :)
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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. :)
Energies aren't accidents.
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

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
"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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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. :)
Energies aren't accidents.
Never said they were.  ;D
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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! ;D
"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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.


Offline choy

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,316
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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!  :)
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,431
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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 »
"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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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!  :)

 :angel:

Offline Benjamin the Red

  • Recovering Calvinist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
"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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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... :D
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 01:02:15 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,399
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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... :D


"Intellectually" ! Eees outrage!  ;)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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!  :)

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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... :D
You can call a spade a spade, in any language.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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....
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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-.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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. :)
Energies aren't accidents.
Never said they were.  ;D
Then why did you bring it up?
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

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,629
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #65 on: October 25, 2012, 01:29:45 PM »
Here we go...again ;D

"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 (?)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #66 on: October 25, 2012, 01:31:45 PM »
Here we go...again ;D


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

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,629
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #67 on: October 25, 2012, 01:36:55 PM »
Here we go...again ;D


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.  :D
"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 (?)

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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. :)
Energies aren't accidents.
Never said they were.  ;D
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.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline bergschlawiner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
  • Sarisan
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.

Offline Frederic

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
  • St Frederick of Utrecht
Re: Transubstantiation?
« 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.
«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)

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,188
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
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

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,126
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
Re: Transubstantiation?
« 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.
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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 »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,431
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
"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

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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 »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,431
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
"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

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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 :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,431
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
"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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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 »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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 »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,814
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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 »
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!"
-T.S. Eliot

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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.
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.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,814
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Transubstantation?
« 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?
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!"
-T.S. Eliot