OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 05:20:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Transubstantation?  (Read 5524 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 2,393


« 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 2,393


« 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 2,393


« 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 2,393


« 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 2,393


« 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 2,393


« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,911


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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 2,393


« 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: 2,393


« 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,947


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« 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

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

Πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀξιοῦντα δημοκρατίαν ἐν τῇ πόλει καταστήσασθαι ὁ Λυκοῦργος εἶπε 'σὺ πρῶτος ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου ποίησον δημοκρατίαν.'
-Lycurgus
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 272


« 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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,947


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« 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

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

Πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀξιοῦντα δημοκρατίαν ἐν τῇ πόλει καταστήσασθαι ὁ Λυκοῦργος εἶπε 'σὺ πρῶτος ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου ποίησον δημοκρατίαν.'
-Lycurgus
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 272


« 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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,947


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« 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

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

Πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀξιοῦντα δημοκρατίαν ἐν τῇ πόλει καταστήσασθαι ὁ Λυκοῦργος εἶπε 'σὺ πρῶτος ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου ποίησον δημοκρατίαν.'
-Lycurgus
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


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: 272


« 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: 2,393


« 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: 2,393


« 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
Banned
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
Banned
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
Banned
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
Banned
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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.223 seconds with 73 queries.