Transubstantation?

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Thank you kindly :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Cavaradossi said:
Apotheoun said:
Cavaradossi said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria 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.

M.
The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.
I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.
I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.
In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).
Yes, I was thinking of St. John when I made my comment.  Essence without energy lacks reality.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Apotheoun said:
Cavaradossi said:
Apotheoun said:
Cavaradossi said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria 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.

M.
The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.
I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.
I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.
In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).
Yes, I was thinking of St. John when I made my comment.  Essence without energy lacks reality.
And both do not subsist without without hypostasis, which leads us to St. Gregory Palamas' three realities of essence, energy, the triad of divine hypostaseis. Perhaps that should be made into a new measuring stick of Orthodoxy, just like the phrase, "one of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh," but then union between the Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy would be nearly impossible, as they already seem uncomfortable enough with the latter statement. :laugh:
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Cavaradossi said:
Apotheoun said:
Cavaradossi said:
Apotheoun said:
Cavaradossi said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
elijahmaria 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.

M.
The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.
I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.
I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.
I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.
In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).
Yes, I was thinking of St. John when I made my comment.  Essence without energy lacks reality.
And both do not subsist without without hypostasis, which leads us to St. Gregory Palamas' three realities of essence, energy, the triad of divine hypostaseis. Perhaps that should be made into a new measuring stick of Orthodoxy, just like the phrase, "one of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh," but then union between the Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy would be nearly impossible, as they already seem uncomfortable enough with the latter statement. :laugh:
Why would we be uncomfortable with "one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh?" That is our Christology.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Papist said:
Why would we be uncomfortable with "one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh?" That is our Christology.
Quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Certain expressions, though correct in themselves, are for extrinsic reasons, inadmissible; the statement "One of the Trinity was crucified" was misapplied in a Monophysite sense and was therefore forbidden by Pope Hormisdas...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm
Perhaps Catholic theology has had a shift in consciousness since the time the Catholic Encyclopedia was published, or perhaps the author was just totally off of his rocker on this one. If so, I will defer to your experience.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Netherlands
Theopaschite language is amusing to shock the average christian. "God died" is my favorite.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
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.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
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.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Netherlands
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Cyrillic said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Jetavan said:
Cyrillic said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Cyrillic said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.

 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
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.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Cyrillic said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.

Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
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"?

Wyatt said:
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?
"Substance" here is not set up as opposed to "accident".
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.

Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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?
"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.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.



 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,265
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
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.

 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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?
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Georgia, United States
Wyatt said:
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.

Wyatt said:
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.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Benjamin the Red said:
Wyatt said:
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.

Wyatt said:
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?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
Jetavan said:
Wyatt said:
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").
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Georgia, United States
Wyatt said:
Benjamin the Red said:
Wyatt said:
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.

Wyatt said:
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:

Benjamin the Red said:
Papist said:
Benjamin the Red said:
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.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Netherlands
Jetavan said:
"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.
 

Samn!

High Elder
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
34
Points
28
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....
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Netherlands
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?
 

Samn!

High Elder
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
34
Points
28
Cyrillic said:
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....


 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Netherlands
Samn! said:
Cyrillic said:
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?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
[quote author=Samn!]Also, I'm surprised that no one has brought up the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which explicitly endorses transubstantiation....
[/quote]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."
 

Samn!

High Elder
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
34
Points
28
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.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Benjamin the Red said:
Wyatt said:
Benjamin the Red said:
Wyatt said:
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.

Wyatt said:
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:

Benjamin the Red said:
Papist said:
Benjamin the Red said:
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?
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
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
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
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.
 
Top