The bread changes to the body of Christ , and the wine changes to blood of Christ after the priests bless the bread and the wine. How Orthodox Christian understand this change?choy said:
This is what a Catholic would say:walter1234 said:
Orthodoxy would say that something does "happen" in the Eucharist, that something does "change", but would not try to use philosophical concepts like "accidents" and "subtance" to explain it.
While Transubstantiation does not, in fact, answer the question of how it happens, it does elaborate greatly on the question of exactly what happens.Papist said:
Where is the doctrine of transubstantiation located in the hierarchy of truths, or the gradations in Church Teaching: (1) Dogma; (2) Definitive Doctrine; (3) Authoritative Doctrine; (4) Prudential Admonition/Church Discipline?Papist said:
In laymen's term, all it means is that it looks, feels, and acts like bread, but it is really the body and blood of Christ. Any ink spilled over differences on this matter is ink wasted. We have genuine differences like the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque. This is not one of those differences.Benjamin the Red said:
As with the Orthodox complain in many things the RC does, it is not about whether the belief is heretical per se. But this over scholasticism of the faith does the faith no service. The problem really is that trying to explain things only open more questions. Even Jesus himself did not go into this detail when when most of his disciples left him (John 6).Papist said:
It serves the faith very well for those who happen to be very philsophically oriented. This is actually one of the things that I love about the Latin tradition. That does not mean that I don't also appreciate the Byzantine approach as well, and for different reasons.choy said:
I don't agree, sorry. It is too scholastic. Even my own understanding may not be enough about it, which again is an inherent weakness about scholasticism. The Church uses reason too much, not only in understanding the faith but in everything. Even Sacraments are only reserved for those who can understand it. It is in Canon Law, the Eucharist is not to be given to those who cannot understand it, and children under the age of reason may receive it ONLY IF they know the difference of the Eucharist and food. That is unpatristic and unbiblical.Papist said:
I guess you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. In my view, this is one of those areas in which some are just looking for reasons to disagree with "those horrible Latins," when in fact, there is no real disagreement. As for your idea that reason is over used, read the fathers. They were quite philosophical. What is more, the Orthodox of the middle ages were not so anti-reason as the Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. Again, if you want to talk about the areas where we truly disagree, look to things like the Papacy, the Filioque, and the Immaculate conception.choy said:
No, I'm not saying that just to "disagree with those Latins". Even when I was a Latin I fully agree that one does not need to believe in or understand Transubstantiation to believe in the Real Presence. But the Council of Trent has proven me otherwise. I mean, why do I need to accept Transubstantiation if I believe that the bread and wine is no longer and it is only the Body and Blood of Christ? Why do I need to rack my brain with trying to understand accidents and substance? Makes no sense. It's like, do I need to be a rocket scientist to believe that we put a man on the moon?Papist said:
Why should I rack my brains trying to understand essence and energies? Person and Nature? Of the same substance? etc. etc. etc. The East is just as intellectual as the West.choy said:
I think this is a fair evaluation given an Orthodox perspective.Benjamin the Red said:
Because essence/energies is an important soteriological distinction, and the West does care about it. Person, nature and substance are also vital to understanding the Trinity (and you all have those very same distinctions yourselves, so I hope you care about it).Papist said:
Can you cite the canons that enforce these teachings? The gripe about Transubstantiation is that it is merely an explanation of how the Real Presence is, not what the Real Presence is itself. Thus you can have another way of explaining it, come to the same conclusion, and should not be anathemized for it.Papist said:
Yes, if you reject the person/nature distinction, and if you reject "of the same substance" with regard to the Father and the Son, then the ecumenical councils delcare you anathema.choy said:
I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs. If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.HabteSelassie said:
I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".HabteSelassie said:
There are two distinctions between the Latin teaching and the Orthodox discussions about this. In Transubstantiation, I understand there to be a specific moment where it can be said that the Offering is and isn't the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This translates into an idea where the Mass can be divided into these distinctions, whereas in the Orthodox Liturgy no one moment is necessarily any more important than another. We celebrate the entirety of the Liturgy as a composite moment, as a gradual process rather than an instant becoming. There is no lightning moment where the Bread suddenly is the Body and the Wine suddenly is the Blood. The second distinction is that our Orthodox Fathers prefer not to ask too many questions about how or why the Holy Communion remains in the appearance as ordinary bread and wine. This is a more disconcerting way of thinking for the Latin mindset, but for Orthodox, just to say, "It is, deal with it" sometimes is theology enough. If anything, I dare say the discussions of Metousiosis in the Orthodox and further Palamite theology evolved as a response and reaction to Latin developments, I wouldn't even think it is an organic Orthodox addition. I don't think these matters come up much in Orthodox discussions, and so our teachings seem to me to be an apology to Catholic questions posed towards Orthodox, not necessarily genuine Orthodox questioning. We teach the same things, and yet we don't. We teach that the Offering becomes in a substantive way the Body and Blood of Christ, but we neglect to be pushed to define when this happens. Further, we also acknowledge that the Holy Communion appears to remain Bread and Wine, but we don't put to much thought into it, our focus is on Christ, not mechanics or chemistry :angel:Papist said:
I agree with you a degree, which is why the Ethiopian Fathers haven't had the in-depth discussions of this Energies-Essence matter as the Palamite theologians. We consider such matters to be doctrine rather than dogma, some Ethiopians accept or agree with Gregory Palamas, others do not. Our Fathers generally have been more content to simply let the Mystery cards fall where they will. Further, I'm not sure the Orthodox ontology ever even tries to define matters of the Spirit, rather, offer a kind of almost guided meditation. The doctrines and Canons about the Holy Communion in Orthodox were never meant to intellectually describe the Mysteries in the abstract sense. Rather, these are there to assist Orthodox Christians in their prayer life to better experience what is happening in the Mysteries, our emphasis always remains experiential rather than explanation.elijahmaria said:
That's an interesting view. Was this view widely held before the 20th century?Benjamin the Red said:
Is there "a thing itself"? Or is that a philosophical assumption? Must I believe that there is "a thing itself" in order to not be anathematized?Papist said:
The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief. The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.Papist said:
And I fail how to see how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is more philosophical than the next explanation. It's the same teaching in a particular language. All the Church is saying is that you must believe that it is really Christ's body and blood, and while it looks and acts like bread an wine. I still fail to understand your point.choy said:
I'm not sure I understand your question. How could something not be a "thing?" That's not really philosophy.Jetavan said:
Are "a thing" and "a thing itself" (the "substance") not identical?Papist said:
Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.choy said:
Sure.Jetavan said:
