Transubstantation?

[Wyatt]

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

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

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....

Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.

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

 

[Apotheoun]

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

I have read some great historical articles that speak about the Latinization that affected the Orthodox in different parts of the world, but do the Orthodox need to remain Latinized?  No, they should seek out their own patrimony and reaffirm that.  Let the West be the West and the East be the East. 

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

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

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

I have not denied that many Orthodox have Latinized themselves voluntarily, just as many Eastern Catholics Latinized themselves.  But I am big on de-Latinization, and as a Melkite I strive to restore what was taken from my Church, sometimes through the actions of my ancestors in the faith, and sometimes through the actions of Latins who chose to force their theology, liturgical traditions, and spirituality upon us. 

And I am happy that many Eastern Orthodox Christians have pushed their own Churches to de-Latinize.  I know many Orthodox Christians who are doing this even today (some who are even in seminary), and who are more interested in understanding the ancient patrimony of their own Churches rather than simply to live some hybrid spirituality that is actually foreign to the ancient Fathers of the East.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

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

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

 

[Apotheoun]

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

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

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....

Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.

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

I am an Orthodox Catholic. 

 

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

I wondered where you were.

 

[Iconodule]

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

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

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....

Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.

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

He's a spiritual tourist.

 

[Apotheoun]

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

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

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....

Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.

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

He's a spiritual tourist.

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

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

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

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

I wondered where you were.

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

 

[Samn!]

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

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

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

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

 

[Iconodule]

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

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

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....

Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.

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

He's a spiritual tourist.

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

You're taking lots of pictures but you'll return to the same place you came from without making any connections.

 

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

Yes, if "transubstantian" simply means "become," why not just use the word "become."  Why does one need to use a Latin technical term, when one can affirm the doctrine of the Eucharist without it.

 

[Samn!]

Because 'become' is polyvalent, as I point out above. (Again, the analogy to the Christological controversies!)

 

[Apotheoun]

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

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

This discussion of different types of change is no different from the interminably long an Aristotelian-inspired discussions of the different types of mixture within the context of the Christological controversies....

Ah, so it does describe the mechanism (for lack of a better word) of the change in the Eucharist.  In other words, it is an attempt to pry into the mystery and define it.  You have now made it obvious why Orthodox reject the term, and see Rome's attempt to make it a dogma problematic.

Thank you.

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

He's a spiritual tourist.

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

You're taking lots of pictures . . .

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

. . . but you'll return to the same place you came from without making any connections.

That would involve becoming a Methodist again, and I can say for a fact that that will never happen.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Samn!]

As I said above, transubstantiation is not a mechanism, but rather a description of the type of change that takes place.

 

[Iconodule]

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

 

[Apotheoun]

As I said above, transubstantiation is not a mechanism, but rather a description of the type of change that takes place.

Okay, you have said, in the post quoted by Cavaradossi, that the term transubstantiation is used to affirm that there is a real change in the elements; so why not just use the term "real change," what is so special about the word "transubstantiation"?  What does that word add that saying "real change" leaves out?

 

[Samn!]

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

 

[Apotheoun]

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

Well evidently plain English is ambiguous.  How is "transubstantiation," which you say means "real change" less ambiguous, because if a person rejects the Aristotelian metaphysics upon which the Roman doctrine is founded then that word itself becomes ambiguous.

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

Thank you.  I feel vindicated.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

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

 

[Samn!]

Are the Ecumenical Councils illegitimate because they define what happens in the Incarnation, using the Aristotelian tradition of metaphysics? (Even if you argue that the Fathers developed 'hypostasis' in a new direction, it's still being explicitly used in the sense of the Aristotelian 'primary substance', both by the Cappadocians and by the Chalcedonian fathers like Leontius, Justinian, St Anastasius the Sinaite, St John of Damascus, Theodore Abu Qurra, etc....)

 

[Samn!]

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

See, we're demonstrating the necessity of the precision afforded by 'transubstantation here', since I meant "becomes body and blood and ceases to be bread and wine".......

 

[Apotheoun]

Are the Ecumenical Councils illegitimate because they define what happens in the Incarnation, using the Aristotelian tradition of metaphysics? (Even if you argue that the Fathers developed 'hypostasis' in a new direction, it's still being explicitly used in the sense of the Aristotelian 'primary substance', both by the Cappadocians and by the Chalcedonian fathers like Leontius, Justinian, St John of Damascus, Theodore Abu Qurra, etc....)

The terms used in Triadology and Christology are always being used apophatically, while you are using the term "transustantiation" cataphatically, in order to describe the change in the elements.  In that sense you are not following the Patristic tradition.  Moreover, this has always been the criticism of the Eastern Church against the Western Church since the time of the Scholastic movement, which the Eastern Fathers held used Aristotelian philosophy rather than simply the terminology of the Greeks.

 

[Iconodule]

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

Which Eastern Fathers leveled this criticism against scholasticism?

 

[Apotheoun]

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

See, we're demonstrating the necessity of the precision afforded by 'transubstantation here', since I meant "becomes body and blood and ceases to be bread and wine".......

No, we're showing why speculation upon the holy mysteries tends to lead to heresy.  I think it is wisest to stay with the what is affirmed by the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition and not try to solve the mysteries of faith as if they are mathematical equations.

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

 

[Samn!]

You can't seriously believe that all 'Eastern' theology is exclusively 'apophatic' and all 'Western' theology is exclusively 'cataphatic', can you?

How, for example, is 'homoousios' any more or less apophatic than 'transubstantiation'?

For that matter, the Damascene teaches us that every cataphatic phrase can be stated in apophatic terms, and vice versa....

 

[Apotheoun]

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

Which Eastern Fathers leveled this criticism against scholasticism?

St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus to name just two Fathers.

 

[ialmisry]

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

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

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

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

?

I don't know of a single heresy on the Eucharist in the East in the past 19+ centuries.

 

[Apotheoun]

You can't seriously believe that all 'Eastern' theology is exclusively 'apophatic' and all 'Western' theology is exclusively 'cataphatic', can you?

How, for example, is 'homoousios' any more or less apophatic than 'transubstantiation'?

For that matter, the Damascene teaches us that every cataphatic phrase can be stated in apophatic terms, and vice versa....

Homoousios is most certainly used apophatically, because the Cappadocians, and the other fourth century Fathers, always insisted that we cannot know what the divine ousia is.  That Christ is proper to it, we know, but nothing else.  Or do you hold the Scholastic idea that we can know, but not comprehend, the ousia of God?

 

[Iconodule]

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

Which Eastern Fathers leveled this criticism against scholasticism?

St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus to name just two Fathers.

Can you give citations for St. Mark or St. Gregory specifically criticizing scholasticism for using Aristotle?

 

[Samn!]

You can't seriously believe that all 'Eastern' theology is exclusively 'apophatic' and all 'Western' theology is exclusively 'cataphatic', can you?

How, for example, is 'homoousios' any more or less apophatic than 'transubstantiation'?

For that matter, the Damascene teaches us that every cataphatic phrase can be stated in apophatic terms, and vice versa....

Homoousios is most certainly used apophatically, because the Cappadocians, and the other fourth century Fathers, always insisted that we cannot know what the divine ousia is.  That Christ is proper to it, we know, but nothing else.  Or do you hold the Scholastic idea that we can know, but not comprehend, the ousia of God?

Uh.... But again, I could explain 'transubstantiation' in apophatic terms, as I did above, by pointing out that it's a unique type of change that we do not observe in nature and that it negates all the various types of change that are not proper to the Eucharist.

 

[Samn!]

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

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

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

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

?

I don't know of a single heresy on the Eucharist in the East in the past 19+ centuries.

A) Cyril Lukaris

B) the influence of Protestant missionaries, especially in the Levant

C) modern converts from Protestantism with a weird hang-up about anything vaguely 'Latin'

 

[Apotheoun]

How, for example, is 'homoousios' any more or less apophatic than 'transubstantiation'?

How is "homoousios" more apophatic than "transubstantiation," it is more (or to be more precise, it is) apophatic because I cannot know at all what the ousia of God is, or what the term means, but you have told me what "transubstantiation" is, you have described precisely what it means, for you have said that it means that the substance of the bread and wine become the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while the accidents remain.  There is no mystery in that.  I admit that it is a form of gibberish if you do not accept Aristotelian metaphysics, but you have given a precise definition of what the term means and what happens when the elements are consecrated through the chanting of the Eucharistic anaphora.

 

[Iconodule]

C) modern converts from Protestantism with a weird hang-up about anything vaguely 'Latin'

 

[Samn!]

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

Which Eastern Fathers leveled this criticism against scholasticism?

St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus to name just two Fathers.

While David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West is by no means without fault, it does demonstrate the degree to which St Gregory Palamas was working within an Aristotelian framework. Much of the controversy over hesychasm was a debate between two distinct traditions of using Aristotle.  It was never over the validity of Aristotle as such....

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are the Ecumenical Councils illegitimate because they define what happens in the Incarnation, using the Aristotelian tradition of metaphysics? (Even if you argue that the Fathers developed 'hypostasis' in a new direction, it's still being explicitly used in the sense of the Aristotelian 'primary substance', both by the Cappadocians and by the Chalcedonian fathers like Leontius, Justinian, St Anastasius the Sinaite, St John of Damascus, Theodore Abu Qurra, etc....)

So I was right! Now you venture to tell us that the incarnation too is no mystery, arguing that in saying Christ is made known in two natures, that the fathers of Chalcedon, and all later ecumenical councils meant to teach us by what metaphysical mechanism the incarnation itself occurred. It is a shame they did not use their divining powers to tell us by what mechanism the Son is generated: Gregory the Theologian would have loved to know.

 

[Apotheoun]

C) modern converts from Protestantism with a weird hang-up about anything vaguely 'Latin'

I know plenty of non-convert Orthodox who do not like Latin theological terms.  

And a few of them have warned me about Orthodox Latin wannabes, who like to adopt as many Latin terms and practices as possible.  

 

[Samn!]

How, for example, is 'homoousios' any more or less apophatic than 'transubstantiation'?

How is "homoousios" more apophatic than "transubstantiation," it is more (or to be more precise, it is) apophatic because I cannot know at all what the ousia of God is, or what the term means, but you have told me what "transubstantiation" is, you have described precisely what it means, for you have said that it means that the substance of the bread and wine become the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while the accidents remain.  There is no mystery in that.  I admit that it is a form of gibberish if you do not accept Aristotelian metaphysics, but you have given a precise definition of what the term means and what happens when the elements are consecrated through the chanting of the Eucharistic anaphora.

Dude, 'transubstantiation' no more requires comprehending the substance of the body and blood than 'homousios' requires understanding the divine substance. I mean, 'homoousios' makes the very cataphatic claim that the Son and the Father share the same substance.....

 

[Samn!]

Are the Ecumenical Councils illegitimate because they define what happens in the Incarnation, using the Aristotelian tradition of metaphysics? (Even if you argue that the Fathers developed 'hypostasis' in a new direction, it's still being explicitly used in the sense of the Aristotelian 'primary substance', both by the Cappadocians and by the Chalcedonian fathers like Leontius, Justinian, St Anastasius the Sinaite, St John of Damascus, Theodore Abu Qurra, etc....)

So I was right! Now you venture to tell us that the incarnation too is no mystery, arguing that in saying Christ is made known in two natures, that the fathers of Chalcedon, and all later ecumenical councils meant to teach us by what metaphysical mechanism the incarnation itself occurred. It is a shame they did not use their divining powers to tell us by what mechanism the Son is generated: Gregory the Theologian would have loved to know.

Internet problem-- I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here.... In any case, no one now or ever has been talking about mechanisms.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are the Ecumenical Councils illegitimate because they define what happens in the Incarnation, using the Aristotelian tradition of metaphysics? (Even if you argue that the Fathers developed 'hypostasis' in a new direction, it's still being explicitly used in the sense of the Aristotelian 'primary substance', both by the Cappadocians and by the Chalcedonian fathers like Leontius, Justinian, St Anastasius the Sinaite, St John of Damascus, Theodore Abu Qurra, etc....)

So I was right! Now you venture to tell us that the incarnation too is no mystery, arguing that in saying Christ is made known in two natures, that the fathers of Chalcedon, and all later ecumenical councils meant to teach us by what metaphysical mechanism the incarnation itself occurred. It is a shame they did not use their divining powers to tell us by what mechanism the Son is generated: Gregory the Theologian would have loved to know.

Internet problem-- I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here.... In any case, no one now or ever has been talking about mechanisms.

But you yourself just wrote that the Ecumenical Councils defined what happens in the incarnation. Next you will tell me that they have finally bested Eunomius by defining the very essence of God.