OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 06:11:46 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Transubstantation?  (Read 6476 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #180 on: October 30, 2012, 12:43:36 AM »

Both Lutherans and Orthodox/Catholics say that they believe that the Eucharist is the body and Blood of Christ, yet they're affirming substantially different things. So yes, sometimes more technical language is necessary.
The Lutherans believe that the Eucharist is really the Body of Christ but through their bizarre theory of consubstantiation (although it is possible that Irenaeus means something along these lines in his own writings).  They (i.e., the Lutherans) do affirm the reality of Christ's presence, and so long as they do not promote the false notion that it is a mere metaphorical expression (like the Methodists) I see no reason to question the Lutherans on that one particular aspect of the Eucharistic mystery.  I do think that they should abandon their "consubstantianist" theory, because it is as useless as the Scholastic "transubstantiatist" theory.  Now with that said, we would need to look at the teaching of each group (i.e., all the various Protestant sects) in order to see if its particular viewpoint is acceptable from an Orthodox perspective, but that would not require making them uses the redundant and useless term "transubstantiation" in order to assure that they fully affirm the reality of the Eucharist.

It's analogous to the differences between Nestorians, Monophysites, and Orthodox in Christology-- all agree in some sense that Christ is both human and divine, but they believe this in radically different ways......
How interesting that you brought up the Nestorians, since Pope St. Gelasius denied any kind of substantial change in the Eucharistic elements in his treatises against that particular heretical group.  Now as far as the Miaphysites (i.e., those you referred to as Monophysites) are concerned, I do not agree with you that they hold a radically different doctrine from that of the Orthodox. 

So I still see no reason to add the useless and redundant term "transubstantiation" when affirming the full doctrine of the Eucharist.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 12:46:07 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #181 on: October 30, 2012, 12:45:09 AM »

Then you should read up on the controversies that Lukaris caused in the late 17th century in the lead-up to the Council of Jerusalem in 1672.

Or, for example during the Melkite schism of 1724, the Orthodox side was largely bankrolled by an English diplomat named Sherman, just as the Catholic side was largely bankrolled by French diplomats. Sherman pressured the Orthodox to accept a Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, so the Orthodox deacon and Sherman's erstwhile collaborator Elias Fakhr had to write several letters that I'm currently editing and translating to him explaining that the Orthodox agree with the Catholics about transubstantiation, among many other doctrines (the existence of 7 sacraments, the veneration of icons, etc) while still disagreeing with the Catholics (at that time, to the death for both sides) about the place of the pope, the filioque, etc. This is a recurring issue for Orthodox, as illustrated by this very forum, and so we Orthodox must on occasion point out that the Eucharist is not one of our points of real disagreements with Rome.
Logged
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #182 on: October 30, 2012, 12:46:26 AM »

If it's 'redundant' then it's true.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #183 on: October 30, 2012, 12:47:48 AM »

Samn,
Just keep in mind that with Apotheoun "anything remotely associaed with the west = evil incarnate."

Which makes his communion with Rome all the more of a "head scratcher."
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 12:48:27 AM by Papist » Logged

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #184 on: October 30, 2012, 12:50:35 AM »

If it's 'redundant' then it's true.
It is just a useless word, because it is trying to affirm that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ when simply saying that it is the Body and Blood of Christ is sufficient.

It is redundant but not in the sense that it is a synonym for the Orthodox expression; otherwise you could drop the Orthodox terms used and just use the vacuous Scholastic term in their place.

In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation; instead of saying the Orthodox expression, the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.  But clearly the first expression is nonsensical, while the latter expression affirms an Orthodox doctrine.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 12:51:16 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #185 on: October 30, 2012, 12:52:12 AM »

Then you should read up on the controversies that Lukaris caused in the late 17th century in the lead-up to the Council of Jerusalem in 1672.

Or, for example during the Melkite schism of 1724, the Orthodox side was largely bankrolled by an English diplomat named Sherman, just as the Catholic side was largely bankrolled by French diplomats. Sherman pressured the Orthodox to accept a Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, so the Orthodox deacon and Sherman's erstwhile collaborator Elias Fakhr had to write several letters that I'm currently editing and translating to him explaining that the Orthodox agree with the Catholics about transubstantiation, among many other doctrines (the existence of 7 sacraments, the veneration of icons, etc) while still disagreeing with the Catholics (at that time, to the death for both sides) about the place of the pope, the filioque, etc. This is a recurring issue for Orthodox, as illustrated by this very forum, and so we Orthodox must on occasion point out that the Eucharist is not one of our points of real disagreements with Rome.

Thanks Samn. The further we get away from simplistic modern polemics and actually read the historic sources, the better.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #186 on: October 30, 2012, 12:52:33 AM »

Samn,
Just keep in mind that with Apotheoun "anything remotely associaed with the west = evil incarnate."

Which makes his communion with Rome all the more of a "head scratcher."
I have never said that everything coming from the West is evil.  I even like some things written by St. Augustine . . . sure I do not like most of what he wrote, but he does have some great texts, after all even a broken clock is correct twice a day.  Cheesy
Logged

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

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #187 on: October 30, 2012, 12:55:28 AM »

Then you should read up on the controversies that Lukaris caused in the late 17th century in the lead-up to the Council of Jerusalem in 1672.

Or, for example during the Melkite schism of 1724, the Orthodox side was largely bankrolled by an English diplomat named Sherman, just as the Catholic side was largely bankrolled by French diplomats. Sherman pressured the Orthodox to accept a Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, so the Orthodox deacon and Sherman's erstwhile collaborator Elias Fakhr had to write several letters that I'm currently editing and translating to him explaining that the Orthodox agree with the Catholics about transubstantiation, among many other doctrines (the existence of 7 sacraments, the veneration of icons, etc) while still disagreeing with the Catholics (at that time, to the death for both sides) about the place of the pope, the filioque, etc. This is a recurring issue for Orthodox, as illustrated by this very forum, and so we Orthodox must on occasion point out that the Eucharist is not one of our points of real disagreements with Rome.
That Elias Fakhr accepted the Scholastic viewpoint is his own business.  He has my prayers that God may forgive him for his adopting a useless term, when he should have instead simply affirmed the constant Orthodox doctrine. But I am sure God has already forgiven him this indiscretion.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #188 on: October 30, 2012, 12:56:43 AM »

Then you should read up on the controversies that Lukaris caused in the late 17th century in the lead-up to the Council of Jerusalem in 1672.

Or, for example during the Melkite schism of 1724, the Orthodox side was largely bankrolled by an English diplomat named Sherman, just as the Catholic side was largely bankrolled by French diplomats. Sherman pressured the Orthodox to accept a Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, so the Orthodox deacon and Sherman's erstwhile collaborator Elias Fakhr had to write several letters that I'm currently editing and translating to him explaining that the Orthodox agree with the Catholics about transubstantiation, among many other doctrines (the existence of 7 sacraments, the veneration of icons, etc) while still disagreeing with the Catholics (at that time, to the death for both sides) about the place of the pope, the filioque, etc. This is a recurring issue for Orthodox, as illustrated by this very forum, and so we Orthodox must on occasion point out that the Eucharist is not one of our points of real disagreements with Rome.
That Elias Fakhr accepted the Scholastic viewpoint is his own business.  He has my prayers that God may forgive him for his adopting a useless term, when he should have instead simply affirmed the constant Orthodox doctrine. But I am sure God has already forgiven him this indiscretion.
Dude, seriously, you are walking enigma.
Logged

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #189 on: October 30, 2012, 12:57:22 AM »

Thanks Samn. The further we get away from simplistic modern polemics and actually read the historic sources, the better.
I have read some great historical articles that speak about the Latinization that affected the Orthodox in different parts of the world, but do the Orthodox need to remain Latinized?  No, they should seek out their own patrimony and reaffirm that.  Let the West be the West and the East be the East.  Cheesy
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #190 on: October 30, 2012, 12:59:19 AM »

Quote
 In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
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 #191 on: October 30, 2012, 12:59:58 AM »

Then you should read up on the controversies that Lukaris caused in the late 17th century in the lead-up to the Council of Jerusalem in 1672.

Or, for example during the Melkite schism of 1724, the Orthodox side was largely bankrolled by an English diplomat named Sherman, just as the Catholic side was largely bankrolled by French diplomats. Sherman pressured the Orthodox to accept a Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, so the Orthodox deacon and Sherman's erstwhile collaborator Elias Fakhr had to write several letters that I'm currently editing and translating to him explaining that the Orthodox agree with the Catholics about transubstantiation, among many other doctrines (the existence of 7 sacraments, the veneration of icons, etc) while still disagreeing with the Catholics (at that time, to the death for both sides) about the place of the pope, the filioque, etc. This is a recurring issue for Orthodox, as illustrated by this very forum, and so we Orthodox must on occasion point out that the Eucharist is not one of our points of real disagreements with Rome.
That Elias Fakhr accepted the Scholastic viewpoint is his own business.  He has my prayers that God may forgive him for his adopting a useless term, when he should have instead simply affirmed the constant Orthodox doctrine. But I am sure God has already forgiven him this indiscretion.
Dude, seriously, you are walking enigma.
Not really, I even stated in this very thread what keeps me from becoming Eastern Orthodox.  I am Orthodox in all my Triadological and Christological beliefs, but I do prefer the Melkite Catholic Church (and all the Catholic Churches in communion with her) on one topic.  That said, I have several Orthodox friend who tell me that Orthodoxy really does hold the same teaching as the Catholic Church on that topic, but I remain unconvinced, at least at the present.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #192 on: October 30, 2012, 01:01:11 AM »

So condoms are more important for you than Trinitarian and Christological theology? I've got nothing left to say......
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 #193 on: October 30, 2012, 01:02:11 AM »

Quote
  In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:02:38 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #194 on: October 30, 2012, 01:04:20 AM »

So condoms are more important for you than Trinitarian and Christological theology? I've got nothing left to say......
Yes the moral norm, the fulfilling of which through the practice of virtue enables one to achieve theosis, is very important to me.  I do not believe that one can simultaneously live a life of profligacy and have a living faith in the Holy Trinity.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:04:51 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #195 on: October 30, 2012, 01:04:36 AM »

No, what happens and the mechanism by which something happens are different. If I use a jack to raise my tire, 'raising' is what happens, the jack is the mechanism.
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 #196 on: October 30, 2012, 01:06:37 AM »

No, what happens and the mechanism by which something happens are different. If I use a jack to raise my tire, 'raising' is what happens, the jack is the mechanism.
What happens is a mystery.  Once again thank you for admitting that and clarifying why the Orthodox have always rejected the idea that transubstantiation is a dogma.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #197 on: October 30, 2012, 01:07:57 AM »

So you won't say that 'what happens' is that bread and wine become body and blood?

Because, 'transubstantiation' is simply a more nuanced way of saying 'become'.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #198 on: October 30, 2012, 01:08:25 AM »

Thanks Samn. The further we get away from simplistic modern polemics and actually read the historic sources, the better.
I have read some great historical articles that speak about the Latinization that affected the Orthodox in different parts of the world, but do the Orthodox need to remain Latinized?  No, they should seek out their own patrimony and reaffirm that.  Let the West be the West and the East be the East.  Cheesy

This narrative of "Latinization" and "Western Captivity" is a form of Orientalism. You deny the Orthodox their own agency in adopting "Latin" terms to defend their tradition... it could only be the result of their passivity/ subjection that they did this, according to this narrative. This narrative is false. As Samn has pointed out, the adoption of "transubstantiation" was not useless but a useful response to Protestant missionary activity. The Orthodox adopted this term not from obsequiousness toward Latin scholasticism but as a handy and natural way to express Orthodox doctrine to people who had been brought up in the Latin heritage.

Quote
Let the West be the West and the East be the East.

The "West" and the "East" are ideological boundaries as much as geographic ones, and, as globalization continues to blur borders and boundaries, this talk of "West" and "East" is becoming purely ideological and fantastic.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #199 on: October 30, 2012, 01:09:16 AM »

So you won't say that 'what happens' is that bread and wine become body and blood?

Because, 'transubstantiation' is simply a more nuanced way of saying 'become'.
I know that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, but I do not attempt to know what happens, or how the mystery is brought about.  I accept it by faith.  Any attempt to define the mystery is pointless.  Just as it is pointless to try and define God.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #200 on: October 30, 2012, 01:11:05 AM »

Quote
  In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.
You are arguing against the Catholic teaching and defending the Eastern Orthodox stance. What's weird about this? YOU'RE CATHOLIC.
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 #201 on: October 30, 2012, 01:12:44 AM »

Thanks Samn. The further we get away from simplistic modern polemics and actually read the historic sources, the better.
I have read some great historical articles that speak about the Latinization that affected the Orthodox in different parts of the world, but do the Orthodox need to remain Latinized?  No, they should seek out their own patrimony and reaffirm that.  Let the West be the West and the East be the East.  Cheesy

This narrative of "Latinization" and "Western Captivity" is a form of Orientalism. You deny the Orthodox their own agency in adopting "Latin" terms to defend their tradition... it could only be the result of their passivity/ subjection that they did this, according to this narrative. This narrative is false. As Samn has pointed out, the adoption of "transubstantiation" was not useless but a useful response to Protestant missionary activity. The Orthodox adopted this term not from obsequiousness toward Latin scholasticism but as a handy and natural way to express Orthodox doctrine to people who had been brought up in the Latin heritage.

Quote
Let the West be the West and the East be the East.

The "West" and the "East" are ideological boundaries as much as geographic ones, and, as globalization continues to blur borders and boundaries, this talk of "West" and "East" is becoming purely ideological and fantastic.
I have not denied that many Orthodox have Latinized themselves voluntarily, just as many Eastern Catholics Latinized themselves.  But I am big on de-Latinization, and as a Melkite I strive to restore what was taken from my Church, sometimes through the actions of my ancestors in the faith, and sometimes through the actions of Latins who chose to force their theology, liturgical traditions, and spirituality upon us. 

And I am happy that many Eastern Orthodox Christians have pushed their own Churches to de-Latinize.  I know many Orthodox Christians who are doing this even today (some who are even in seminary), and who are more interested in understanding the ancient patrimony of their own Churches rather than simply to live some hybrid spirituality that is actually foreign to the ancient Fathers of the East.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:16:54 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,556



« Reply #202 on: October 30, 2012, 01:13:55 AM »

So you won't say that 'what happens' is that bread and wine become body and blood?

Because, 'transubstantiation' is simply a more nuanced way of saying 'become'.

But then you make transubstantiation a vacuous utterance. What makes it necessary to affirm transubstantiation, when one can confess that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and say the same thing? Its meaning must differ in some sense from simply becoming, for you to be so insistent upon its use.
Logged

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #203 on: October 30, 2012, 01:14:52 AM »

Quote
  In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.
You are arguing against the Catholic teaching and defending the Eastern Orthodox stance. What's weird about this? YOU'RE CATHOLIC.
I am an Orthodox Catholic.  Cheesy
Logged

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

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #204 on: October 30, 2012, 01:15:50 AM »

So you won't say that 'what happens' is that bread and wine become body and blood?

Because, 'transubstantiation' is simply a more nuanced way of saying 'become'.

But then you make transubstantiation a vacuous utterance. What makes it necessary to affirm transubstantiation, when one can confess that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and say the same thing? Its meaning must differ in some sense from simply becoming, for you to be so insistent upon its use.
I wondered where you were.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #205 on: October 30, 2012, 01:17:00 AM »

Quote
  In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.
You are arguing against the Catholic teaching and defending the Eastern Orthodox stance. What's weird about this? YOU'RE CATHOLIC.

He's a spiritual tourist.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #206 on: October 30, 2012, 01:18:17 AM »

Quote
  In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.
You are arguing against the Catholic teaching and defending the Eastern Orthodox stance. What's weird about this? YOU'RE CATHOLIC.

He's a spiritual tourist.
I am on a spiritual journey, but so are all who are living in this created world.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,556



« Reply #207 on: October 30, 2012, 01:18:41 AM »

So you won't say that 'what happens' is that bread and wine become body and blood?

Because, 'transubstantiation' is simply a more nuanced way of saying 'become'.

But then you make transubstantiation a vacuous utterance. What makes it necessary to affirm transubstantiation, when one can confess that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and say the same thing? Its meaning must differ in some sense from simply becoming, for you to be so insistent upon its use.
I wondered where you were.

Being beaten to the punch by you. I am late to the party, so it seems. laugh
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #208 on: October 30, 2012, 01:18:53 AM »

Look, can we admit that 'become' has many meanings? For example-- I can become a lawyer, a father, old, a corpse, 'a lion' (metaphorically), charcoal (by being burned), an amputee, etc....    These are all different meanings of 'become'.

When we say that the bread and wine become body and blood, there are several ways this can be understood. For example, it could be in the same sense that I become a lion, that is metaphorically. We both agree that this is incorrect, right?

Transubstantiation, given that it is a form of change not observed in nature (is that apophatic enough for you?), simply narrows down the type of change that is occurring-- it's not a metaphorical change, a mechanical change, nor a  change perceivable by the 5 senses (which would be a change in accidents), but it is a real change . But, the what-it-is does change-- bread and wine become true body and true wine, without some kind of simultaneous continued existence of bread and wine.

So yes, it is important to point out what kind of change occurs, to eliminate potentially heretical understandings of this change, which are common enough over the past 5 centuries, east and west.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:20:53 AM by Samn! » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #209 on: October 30, 2012, 01:19:24 AM »

Quote
 In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.
You are arguing against the Catholic teaching and defending the Eastern Orthodox stance. What's weird about this? YOU'RE CATHOLIC.

He's a spiritual tourist.
I am on a spiritual journey, but so are all who are living in this created world.

You're taking lots of pictures but you'll return to the same place you came from without making any connections.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:19:55 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #210 on: October 30, 2012, 01:20:26 AM »

So you won't say that 'what happens' is that bread and wine become body and blood?

Because, 'transubstantiation' is simply a more nuanced way of saying 'become'.

But then you make transubstantiation a vacuous utterance. What makes it necessary to affirm transubstantiation, when one can confess that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and say the same thing? Its meaning must differ in some sense from simply becoming, for you to be so insistent upon its use.
Yes, if "transubstantian" simply means "become," why not just use the word "become."  Why does one need to use a Latin technical term, when one can affirm the doctrine of the Eucharist without it.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #211 on: October 30, 2012, 01:21:58 AM »

Because 'become' is polyvalent, as I point out above. (Again, the analogy to the Christological controversies!)
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 #212 on: October 30, 2012, 01:22:22 AM »

Quote
  In other words, you could say:  The Eucharist is transubstantiation;

Huh? No. Transubstantiation is a technical term for the exact type of change which occurs when the bread and wine become body and blood, which is not a synonym for 'Eucharist'.

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....
Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.
You are arguing against the Catholic teaching and defending the Eastern Orthodox stance. What's weird about this? YOU'RE CATHOLIC.

He's a spiritual tourist.
I am on a spiritual journey, but so are all who are living in this created world.

You're taking lots of pictures . . .
Oh, yes I have done that.  My journey started a long time ago, but not in a galaxy far far away.  Nevertheless, I am sure that it still has a ways to go, and I only pray that the destination is a blissful one.

. . . but you'll return to the same place you came from without making any connections.
That would involve becoming a Methodist again, and I can say for a fact that that will never happen.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:28:50 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,556



« Reply #213 on: October 30, 2012, 01:28:33 AM »

Look, can we admit that 'become' has many meanings? For example-- I can become a lawyer, a father, old, a corpse, 'a lion' (metaphorically), charcoal (by being burned), an amputee, etc....    These are all different meanings of 'become'.

When we say that the bread and wine become body and blood, there are several ways this can be understood. For example, it could be in the same sense that I become a lion, that is metaphorically. We both agree that this is incorrect, right?

Transubstantiation, given that it is a form of change not observed in nature (is that apophatic enough for you?), simply narrows down the type of change that is occurring-- it's not a metaphorical change, a mechanical change, nor a  change perceivable by the 5 senses, but it is a real change (which would be a change in accidents). But, the what-it-is does change-- bread and wine become true body and true wine, without some kind of simultaneous continued existence of bread and wine.

So yes, it is important to point out what kind of change occurs, to eliminate potentially heretical understandings of this change, which are common enough over the past 5 centuries, east and west.

Ah, so it is not a vacuous utterance. Instead you claim to explain that the mystery of mysteries is no mystery at all, but you pronounce to us boldly that the mechanism behind it is that the essence changes while the accidents remain the same. Next perhaps you can pronounce to us boldly that you have gained knowledge of the mechanism by which God is equally a triad and a monad, or the mechanism by which God became man.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #214 on: October 30, 2012, 01:33:03 AM »

As I said above, transubstantiation is not a mechanism, but rather a description of the type of change that takes place.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #215 on: October 30, 2012, 01:36:46 AM »

Samn, some people are incorrigibly fixated on the East/ West dichotomy and any historic matter that contradicts it gets a big "DOES NOT COMPUTE." Translate the texts, make them available, and those who are willing to learn something will benefit from it.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #216 on: October 30, 2012, 01:36:51 AM »

As I said above, transubstantiation is not a mechanism, but rather a description of the type of change that takes place.
Okay, you have said, in the post quoted by Cavaradossi, that the term transubstantiation is used to affirm that there is a real change in the elements; so why not just use the term "real change," what is so special about the word "transubstantiation"?  What does that word add that saying "real change" leaves out?
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #217 on: October 30, 2012, 01:41:46 AM »

"Real change" is ambiguous. For example, consubstantiation is a real change. To say that Christ is "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" (so far as I can understand it!) is construed by its proponents as a real change. Neither of these is the type of change accepted by Orthodoxy and described by transubstantiation. If you wanted a really long parsing of transubstantiation you could say "a change by which the bread and wine really become body and blood but maintain the physical properties of bread and wine", but it's easier to say transubstantiation, I think.....
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:45:45 AM by Samn! » Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #218 on: October 30, 2012, 01:45:50 AM »

"Real change" is ambiguous. For example, consubstantiation is a real change. To say that Christ is "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" is (so far as I can understand it!) is construed by its proponents as a real change. Neither of these is the type of change accepted by Orthodoxy and described by transubstantiation. If you wanted a really long parsing of transubstantiation you could say "a change by which the bread and wine really becomes body and blood but maintains the physical properties of bread and wine", but it's easier to say transubstantiation, I think.....
Well evidently plain English is ambiguous.  How is "transubstantiation," which you say means "real change" less ambiguous, because if a person rejects the Aristotelian metaphysics upon which the Roman doctrine is founded then that word itself becomes ambiguous.

Now I admit that your really long parsing is helpful, because it involves an admission on your part that the term "transubstantiation" is an attempt to define the type of change that occurs, that is, it is an attempt to describe and define the mystery so that it is no longer really all that mysterious.

Thank you.  I feel vindicated.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:49:45 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,556



« Reply #219 on: October 30, 2012, 01:49:05 AM »

"Real change" is ambiguous. For example, consubstantiation is a real change. To say that Christ is "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" (so far as I can understand it!) is construed by its proponents as a real change. Neither of these is the type of change accepted by Orthodoxy and described by transubstantiation. If you wanted a really long parsing of transubstantiation you could say "a change by which the bread and wine really becomes body and blood but maintain the physical properties of bread and wine", but it's easier to say transubstantiation, I think.....

How does the definition, "a change by which the bread and wine really becomes body and blood but maintain the physical properties of bread and wine," exclude consubstantiation? After all, you yourself have said that change and become are too broad in their meaning to exclude consubstantiation. So is it not necessary then that your definition of transubstantiation must necessarily include not only that the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ, but also that the entire substance of the bread is consumed, so that none of it remains?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:57:51 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #220 on: October 30, 2012, 01:53:02 AM »

Are the Ecumenical Councils illegitimate because they define what happens in the Incarnation, using the Aristotelian tradition of metaphysics? (Even if you argue that the Fathers developed 'hypostasis' in a new direction, it's still being explicitly used in the sense of the Aristotelian 'primary substance', both by the Cappadocians and by the Chalcedonian fathers like Leontius, Justinian, St Anastasius the Sinaite, St John of Damascus, Theodore Abu Qurra, etc....)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:57:06 AM by Samn! » Logged
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #221 on: October 30, 2012, 01:54:11 AM »

Quote
  How does the definition, "a change by which the bread and wine really becomes body and blood but maintain the physical properties of bread and wine," exclude consubstantiation? 

See, we're demonstrating the necessity of the precision afforded by 'transubstantation here', since I meant "becomes body and blood and ceases to be bread and wine".......
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 #222 on: October 30, 2012, 01:56:08 AM »

Are the Ecumenical Councils illegitimate because they define what happens in the Incarnation, using the Aristotelian tradition of metaphysics? (Even if you argue that the Fathers developed 'hypostasis' in a new direction, it's still being explicitly used in the sense of the Aristotelian 'primary substance', both by the Cappadocians and by the Chalcedonian fathers like Leontius, Justinian, St John of Damascus, Theodore Abu Qurra, etc....)
The terms used in Triadology and Christology are always being used apophatically, while you are using the term "transustantiation" cataphatically, in order to describe the change in the elements.  In that sense you are not following the Patristic tradition.  Moreover, this has always been the criticism of the Eastern Church against the Western Church since the time of the Scholastic movement, which the Eastern Fathers held used Aristotelian philosophy rather than simply the terminology of the Greeks.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 01:56:40 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #223 on: October 30, 2012, 01:57:39 AM »

which the Eastern Fathers held used Aristotelian philosophy rather than simply the terminology of the Greeks.

Which Eastern Fathers leveled this criticism against scholasticism?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #224 on: October 30, 2012, 01:59:43 AM »

Quote
  How does the definition, "a change by which the bread and wine really becomes body and blood but maintain the physical properties of bread and wine," exclude consubstantiation? 

See, we're demonstrating the necessity of the precision afforded by 'transubstantation here', since I meant "becomes body and blood and ceases to be bread and wine".......
No, we're showing why speculation upon the holy mysteries tends to lead to heresy.  I think it is wisest to stay with the what is affirmed by the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition and not try to solve the mysteries of faith as if they are mathematical equations.

I think that one should simply affirm that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and leave it at that, but if you must add more than you can add what St. Irenaeus said, which - to paraphrase him - is that the Eucharist contains both an earthly and a heavenly reality, because what he said has the added benefit of coordinating well with what Pope St. Gelasius said when he denied a substantial change in the elements.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 02:00:36 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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 0.164 seconds with 73 queries.