Author Topic: Transubstantation?  (Read 10507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,292
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #270 on: October 30, 2012, 04:26:01 PM »
In Christ,
Achronos
[/quote]
That is not what you said last night.
[/quote]
Are we going to approach last night apophatically?  ;)

Psst, I know you have me confused with someone else. ;)
[/quote]
Sorry, your avatar had my head all confused. I was refering to Todd.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,736
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #271 on: October 30, 2012, 04:56:02 PM »
For reasons I can't follow, he seems to want to know if I'm a Severian or not.....

Not at all. I want to know if your primary way of describing Christ is by confessing Him to be one incarnate nature and out if two natures, or if you prefer to to confess in two natures, two energies, etc. Also I would like to know if you primarily confess Christ to be homoousion with the Father or homoiousion with the Father without variation.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Samn!

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #272 on: October 30, 2012, 04:57:31 PM »
What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

Offline Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Φέρ' ὕδωρ φέρ' οἶνον, ὦ παῖ!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #273 on: October 30, 2012, 05:04:18 PM »
What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

Don't you see what he's trying to say?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 05:04:33 PM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος

Offline Samn!

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #274 on: October 30, 2012, 05:06:24 PM »
Honestly, I don't....

Offline Iconodule

  • Uranopolitan
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,900
  • "My god is greater."
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #275 on: October 30, 2012, 05:07:32 PM »
It's just one more way of avoiding the historical and Patristic points that Samn raised.

Offline Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Φέρ' ὕδωρ φέρ' οἶνον, ὦ παῖ!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #276 on: October 30, 2012, 05:08:06 PM »
Honestly, I don't....

I guess that he's saying that people shouldn't make a big fuss on issues about semantics.
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,736
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #277 on: October 30, 2012, 05:08:55 PM »
What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

It has nothing to do with the Orthodoxy of your beliefs, nor is it a trick question. All of the formulae I presented are Orthodox in content, but I would like to know if you use some of them as a primary mode of confession over the others. I suspect strongly, for example, that you, like most Chalcedonian Orthodox acknowledge the formula out of two natures as well as one incarnate nature of the Word of God, but primarily use the formula in two natures for your Christological thought. Similarly, I suspect you probably use the formula homoousion with the Father exclusively. Is this not the case?
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Samn!

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #278 on: October 30, 2012, 05:11:11 PM »
I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?

Offline Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Φέρ' ὕδωρ φέρ' οἶνον, ὦ παῖ!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #279 on: October 30, 2012, 05:13:19 PM »
I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?

Read the post above you.
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος

Offline Samn!

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #280 on: October 30, 2012, 05:23:38 PM »
But I never said that it's not possible to express the same thing in different ways-- very early on I made a point of stating that this is possible. Cavaradossi is simply trying to avoid engaging with the reasons I've given for why Orthodox have to accept the validity of the concept of transubstantiation and my warning about the very real danger in dismissing something for being 'too philosophical'.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 05:24:20 PM by Samn! »

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,736
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #281 on: October 30, 2012, 05:24:32 PM »
I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?

My question is quite simple, despite the acknowledgement that both out of two natures and one incarnate nature of the Word of God are Orthodox confessions when understood properly, is it not accurate to say that the most mature Chalcedonian Orthodox thought (such as the dyoenergism and dyotheletism of the Sixth Council) bases itself more upon 'in two natures' than it does either one 'one incarnate nature of the Word of God' or 'out of two natures'? Similarly, is it not safe to say that Orthodox Triadology is completely based on the formula, 'homoousion with the Father', rather than the formula (equally Orthodox in its intent according to St. Basil), 'homoiousion with the Father without variation'?
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Samn!

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #282 on: October 30, 2012, 05:26:36 PM »
Fair enough, more or less. But get to your point.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,736
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #283 on: October 30, 2012, 05:56:40 PM »
Fair enough, more or less. But get to your point.

Just because a certain terminology has been used by certain fathers does not mean that we are beholden to continue using it. I personally am fine with confessions like the confession of Dositheos, where transubstantiation is used with heavy qualification. But if a term needs to be qualified so much, perhaps it is better that it not be used at all, especially since we can plainly make a confession of what we believe about the Eucharist without it. I am therefore, not too bothered when people object to the use of the term.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Samn!

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #284 on: October 30, 2012, 06:17:44 PM »
The nature of one's objections here is the important thing. For example, 'one incarnate nature' is only acceptable if we understand it to mean in fact 'one subject with both human and divine natures'. This is dealt with in the canons of the 5th Ecumenical council. If it is understood to mean 'one subject out of two subjects', then it is illegitimate. If it is understood to mean 'one universal out of two universals' this is also illegitimate. Likewise, criticism of Chalcedon that reads 'in two natures' as 'in two subjects' is a valid criticism of Chalcedon that had to be addressed. This is why further precision of language was demanded by each council. Someone who continues to use 'one nature' language after nature is explained by the Councils as being a universal and hypostasis as being a particular falls under the councils' anathemas. That's why we can read Cyrill's 'one nature' language as the standard of Orthodoxy but must condemn Severus. That said, I have no desire to go down a Christological rabbit-hole, which this thread is not about. I'm just using it as an illustration and anyone who wants to discuss that stuff should start their own thread.

 Rather, my point is that many of the criticisms of transubstantiation are either invalid or highly, highly problematic-- the objection out of anti-Latin prejudice, the objection out of acceptance of the Lutheran or other Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, and the objection out of a fear of 'philosophy'.  It may be that there are objections to transubstantiation that do not fall into this list, however, none of them that I have seen are objections to the mainstream Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. For example, if someone wants to reject transubstantiation because they read it as some kind of metaphysical mechanism and not a gloss of 'become', then this is a valid criticism insofar as anyone who sees transubstantiation as a mechanism is in fact committing an error. But, it's a bit of a straw man, as this is not the normal understanding of the term...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 06:26:04 PM by Samn! »

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #285 on: October 30, 2012, 06:55:12 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The nature of one's objections here is the important thing. For example, 'one incarnate nature' is only acceptable if we understand it to mean in fact 'one subject with both human and divine natures'. This is dealt with in the canons of the 5th Ecumenical council. If it is understood to mean 'one subject out of two subjects', then it is illegitimate. If it is understood to mean 'one universal out of two universals' this is also illegitimate. Likewise, criticism of Chalcedon that reads 'in two natures' as 'in two subjects' is a valid criticism of Chalcedon that had to be addressed. This is why further precision of language was demanded by each council. Someone who continues to use 'one nature' language after nature is explained by the Councils as being a universal and hypostasis as being a particular falls under the councils' anathemas. That's why we can read Cyrill's 'one nature' language as the standard of Orthodoxy but must condemn Severus. That said, I have no desire to go down a Christological rabbit-hole, which this thread is not about. I'm just using it as an illustration and anyone who wants to discuss that stuff should start their own thread.

 Rather, my point is that many of the criticisms of transubstantiation are either invalid or highly, highly problematic-- the objection out of anti-Latin prejudice, the objection out of acceptance of the Lutheran or other Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, and the objection out of a fear of 'philosophy'.  It may be that there are objections to transubstantiation that do not fall into this list, however, none of them that I have seen are objections to the mainstream Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. For example, if someone wants to reject transubstantiation because they read it as some kind of metaphysical mechanism and not a gloss of 'become', then this is a valid criticism insofar as anyone who sees transubstantiation as a mechanism is in fact committing an error. But, it's a bit of a straw man, as this is not the normal understanding of the term...



I'm just popping in to say careful there  :angel:

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

Offline Severian

  • But I'm only a cynical jerk on the internet, I swear
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,265
  • Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth
    • St. Jacob Baradeus' Orthodox Christian Fellowship
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodoxy
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #286 on: October 31, 2012, 05:42:21 PM »
What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 05:43:52 PM by Severian »
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

Offline choy

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,316
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #287 on: October 31, 2012, 05:53:30 PM »
What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?

The way the Fathers were interpreted were wrong and actually puts the person in the same problem he accused the Catholics of.

Offline Severian

  • But I'm only a cynical jerk on the internet, I swear
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,265
  • Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth
    • St. Jacob Baradeus' Orthodox Christian Fellowship
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodoxy
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #288 on: October 31, 2012, 06:00:20 PM »
What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?

The way the Fathers were interpreted were wrong and actually puts the person in the same problem he accused the Catholics of.
That's what I was thinking.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 06:01:38 PM by Severian »
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

Offline Samn!

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #289 on: October 31, 2012, 06:05:03 PM »
Obviously, I'm with Choy here...... The Protestant writer is also gaming things a bit too by only discussing patristic citations that he thinks he can twist into his point of view. I'd like to see what he would do with the writings of St Cyril about the Eucharist, for example.... To give one citation among many from him on this topic, here's from his commentary on Matthew:

"Placing the aforementioned things [i.e. the bread and wine] in the sight of God, we earnestly ask that they be remodeled for us into a spiritual blessing, that having partaken of these things, we may be sanctified in body and soul. But [Christ] said, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my blood,' so that you may not hold that these visible things are a type; rather, in some ineffable way these things put out on the table are truly changed by God, into the body and blood of Christ."

Offline choy

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,316
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #290 on: October 31, 2012, 07:22:54 PM »
Also it seems that he is going into the same error that most Protestants or anti-Christians go into, that is putting as much weight on comments made by some random person against comments by those who were recognized as teachers of the true faith.  Like when he mentioned of this monk who believed in spiritual presence rather than real presence.  I bet you can find religious people today who believe the same thing, doesn't mean the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.  In fact, the Catholic Church teaches against things like abortions and contraception, and yet you have nuns who support either or both issues.

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Transubstantation?
« Reply #291 on: June 20, 2013, 03:47:01 AM »
Samn,

Thanks for being patient in your interaction with others on this forum. You educated me on this issue! Thanks again!
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/