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
2,034
Reaction score
0
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
2,034
Reaction score
0
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
25
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
25
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.
 
Top