Transubstantation?

[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.

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.....

You would make a great Roman Catholic. 

 

[Apotheoun]

So since St. Irenaeus and Pope St. Gelasius do not affirm transubstantiation, but actually reject such a description, does that make them heretics?  Especially St. Gelasius who explicitly rejected the idea that the substance of the bread and wine are changed, what does that mean about him?  Was he just wrong and the later (i.e., the 16th century) Roman Church was right?  Or was he not simply wrong but a true heretic?

 

[Samn!]

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun, I think you both have a hyper-determined understanding (bordering on trolling) of what is meant when someone is defining something, and this is taking this conversation in the direction of absurdity, so I'll just lay out the last of what I have to say here and maybe give up on trying to talk reasonably to people on the internet.

To wit,

No normal understanding of transubstantiation requires anyone to understand what the essence of something is. What's at stake rather is understanding the type of change that has occurred. If you can't get this distinction through your head, then I can't help you. Saying which kind of change occurred is not the same thing as describing the mechanism by which it occurred.

No serious, informed person would argue that the Fathers were not working creatively within the framework of neo-Platonic Aristotelianism. There are some differences in the ways that this tradition plays out in various Fathers and various writers, but certain basic things, such as the concepts of substance and accident, are pretty much the same across the early and Medieval tradition, Latin, Greek, or for that matter Syriac or Armenian. This stops being the case slowly in the Latin world from the 13th century and the Greek world from the 19th century. But, unless we're willing to accept this tradition as in some way valid and meaningful, the Ecumenical Councils and all of Orthodox Triadological and Christological discourse make no sense.


'Apophatic' does not mean 'we won't explain it'. It rather means using negative language to precisely locate where the mystery is. This is what the Christological definitions do, for example, in their mix of apophatic and cataphatic language. Transubstantiation does the same thing. It doesn't define the mechanism of the change, but rather by putting forward a type of change for which we have no natural analogy, it eliminates a whole host of erroneous conceptions of change.

 

[Samn!]

Apotheoun, I'm perfectly happy with popes and saints getting stuff wrong or using language I'm not too keen on. Unlike you, I'm not Catholic....

 

[Papist]

  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's attitude towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a perfect example of LARPing. His idiosyncratic approach to the faith is just that, idiosyncratic.

 

[Papist]

  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.

Yup. He's basically created his own set of beliefs and judges both Churches by that rule.

 

[Papist]

  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. 

This would be true except that you profession is neither.

 

[Papist]

  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.

Do you believe that the Latins are heretical?

 

[Wyatt]

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.....

You would make a great Roman Catholic. 

You would make a great Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Cyrillic]

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun, I think you both have a hyper-determined understanding (bordering on trolling) of what is meant when someone is defining something, and this is taking this conversation in the direction of absurdity, so I'll just lay out the last of what I have to say here and maybe give up on trying to talk reasonably to people on the internet.

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun are two greatly respected posters (at least by me). If anyone's trolling it's you trying to force latin doctrines on us.

You would make a great Eastern Orthodox.

This. I wonder how any Eastern Catholic could venerate St. Mark of Ephesus since it was his dying wish that the Eastern Catholics shouldn't do so (or at least pray for his soul).

Apotheoun's attitude towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a perfect example of LARPing. His idiosyncratic approach to the faith is just that, idiosyncratic.

Welcome to the magical world of the Orthodox in Communion with Rome types. They (and the Melkites in general) seem to think they have a time machine which makes them in communion with 8th century Rome.

 

[Iconodule]

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun, I think you both have a hyper-determined understanding (bordering on trolling) of what is meant when someone is defining something, and this is taking this conversation in the direction of absurdity, so I'll just lay out the last of what I have to say here and maybe give up on trying to talk reasonably to people on the internet.

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun are two greatly respected posters (at least by me). If anyone's trolling it's you trying to force latin doctrines on us.

Completely ridiculous. How is he trying to force anything on you? Cut the hysterics.

Before people make any more dumb comments about Samn, take the time to read his blog, which excellent and unique: : http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com

 

[Cyrillic]

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun, I think you both have a hyper-determined understanding (bordering on trolling) of what is meant when someone is defining something, and this is taking this conversation in the direction of absurdity, so I'll just lay out the last of what I have to say here and maybe give up on trying to talk reasonably to people on the internet.

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun are two greatly respected posters (at least by me). If anyone's trolling it's you trying to force latin doctrines on us.

Completely ridiculous. How is he trying to force anything on you? Cut the hysterics.

Before people make any more dumb comments about Samn, take the time to read his blog, which excellent and unique: : http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com

I'm not hysteric, in fact, you're the one sounding hysteric now.

 

[Iconodule]

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun, I think you both have a hyper-determined understanding (bordering on trolling) of what is meant when someone is defining something, and this is taking this conversation in the direction of absurdity, so I'll just lay out the last of what I have to say here and maybe give up on trying to talk reasonably to people on the internet.

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun are two greatly respected posters (at least by me). If anyone's trolling it's you trying to force latin doctrines on us.

Completely ridiculous. How is he trying to force anything on you? Cut the hysterics.

Before people make any more dumb comments about Samn, take the time to read his blog, which excellent and unique: : http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com

I'm not hysteric, in fact, you're the one sounding hysteric now.

So, how is Sam forcing Latin doctrine on you?  :

 

[Wyatt]

This thread reminds me of when I expressed reservations about the essence/energies distinction in Eastern Orthodoxy. The hypocrisy here is appalling.

 

[Cavaradossi]

'Apophatic' does not mean 'we won't explain it'. It rather means using negative language to precisely locate where the mystery is. This is what the Christological definitions do, for example, in their mix of apophatic and cataphatic language. Transubstantiation does the same thing. It doesn't define the mechanism of the change, but rather by putting forward a type of change for which we have no natural analogy, it eliminates a whole host of erroneous conceptions of change.

But in using the term transubstantiation, you have made a natural analogy. You posit that the body of Christ, whatever it is, has a what-it-is, which replaces and fully consumes the what-it-is of the bread and wine, whatever they are. In an attempt to provide stability for and closure upon our understanding of the mystery of mysteries, you have resorted to appealing to the concept of being. But immediately upon specifying the manner of change as being a change in being, you open a whole can of worms by opening the mystery up to further speculation, which has been validated by the shoving of the mystery into the framework of being. So then what becomes of the remaining accidents? Do they inhere in the what-it-is of the body of Christ? Do they remain without subject? And more importantly how, by eating the remaining accidents, do we become deified? Is it because the body of Christ has become locally present where the accidents are to be found? How is an essence made locally present without manifesting its own form and energies, such as the form and energies of flesh and blood? What is the nature of the body of Christ? Is it His hypostasis? His two natures?

But perhaps you would object by saying that transubstantiation is not meant to subject the mystery to the framework of being. But in that case, you would again make it an empty utterance, since such a denial would mean that the term does not specify the manner of change. And if you try to take refuge in the term homoousion, I would ask, what was meant by the term homoousion? That the Father and the Son, and the relationship between them can be grasped by claiming that they are the same kind of beings which we see around us, which have an essence and an hypostasis? Of course, I would suspect you would rightfully reject such impiety.

So perhaps then you would try to take refuge in saying that the term homoousion similarly makes no claim as to how the Father and Son are one, only stating the fact, and that therefore the use of meaningless words like transubstantiation is justified. But this does not hold, because if one restates the term homoousion in terms of what the word is intended to exclude (that is, homoousion excludes the possibility of that the Son is heteroousion and also certain implications homoiousion) one will see that it is not meant to define the manner of unity, but only that it affirms the fact that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. By contrast, when we examine only one term alone which transubstantiation is designed to exclude, consubstantiation, it immediately becomes clear that the term indeed aims to define the manner of the change, by excluding the possibility that the essence of the bread remains.

Do you see then? The term itself carries an inherent meaning which encroaches upon explaining the unexplainable by way of privation. Hence we must either qualify that it does not explain how the Eucharistic change happens (which robs the term transubstantiation of its meaning and makes the term nonsensical), or we must admit that we use the term to pry into that which cannot be explained. We are simply better off not using it.

 

[Cyrillic]

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun, I think you both have a hyper-determined understanding (bordering on trolling) of what is meant when someone is defining something, and this is taking this conversation in the direction of absurdity, so I'll just lay out the last of what I have to say here and maybe give up on trying to talk reasonably to people on the internet.

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun are two greatly respected posters (at least by me). If anyone's trolling it's you trying to force latin doctrines on us.

Completely ridiculous. How is he trying to force anything on you? Cut the hysterics.

Before people make any more dumb comments about Samn, take the time to read his blog, which excellent and unique: : http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com

I'm not hysteric, in fact, you're the one sounding hysteric now.

So, how is Sam forcing Latin doctrine on you?  :

Forcing might be too strong a word, but so is calling Cavaradossi and Apotheoun trolls. Happy now?

This thread reminds me of when I expressed reservations about the essence/energies distinction in Eastern Orthodoxy. The hypocrisy here is appalling.

Please elaborate.

 

[Wyatt]

Why is everyone saying essence/accidents instead of substance/accidents?

 

[choy]

Fight!!!  Ban!!!  Oh, wait, wrong forum  ;D

 

[Wyatt]

Please elaborate.

I felt that the essence/energies distinction, which goes beyond what the pre-schism Church believed about the Godhead (that God is a Trinity) was unnecessary and attempted to delve too deeply into the mystery of God. I was freaked out on by a slew of people that claimed the teaching was orthodox and quite necessary. Yet, the same argument as I used is used by many Eastern Orthodox on here as to why transubstantiation is unnecessary at best and heretical at worst.

 

[Iconodule]

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun, I think you both have a hyper-determined understanding (bordering on trolling) of what is meant when someone is defining something, and this is taking this conversation in the direction of absurdity, so I'll just lay out the last of what I have to say here and maybe give up on trying to talk reasonably to people on the internet.

Cavaradossi and Apotheoun are two greatly respected posters (at least by me). If anyone's trolling it's you trying to force latin doctrines on us.

Completely ridiculous. How is he trying to force anything on you? Cut the hysterics.

Before people make any more dumb comments about Samn, take the time to read his blog, which excellent and unique: : http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com

I'm not hysteric, in fact, you're the one sounding hysteric now.

So, how is Sam forcing Latin doctrine on you?  :

Forcing might be too strong a word, but so is calling Cavaradossi and Apotheoun trolls. Happy now?

He said "bordering on trolling" which is different and a quite fair assessment. Apotheoun and Cavaradossi show no willingness to seriously engage with the important historic points that Samn has raised. And Apotheoun's "You would make a great Roman Catholic" is definitely trolling. I am still waiting for Apotheoun's citations of where St. Mark of Ephesus or St. Gregory Palamas denounce the scholastics for employing Aristotelian philosophy.

 

[Samn!]

Look, let me explain the reasons why I'm troubled when Orthodox criticize the concept of transubstantiation on the grounds that it's too "Latin" or too "Aristotelian".

First of all, this fits into the pattern of knee-jerk anti-Latinism that often mars popular Orthodox apologetics. Whether something is used by the Latins has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Third, by rejecting anything that smacks of 'Aristotelianism' one runs the risk of rejecting much of the Orthodox theological heritage, including virtually all Orthodox Christological and Triadological language. Saying that the Fathers didn't use Aristotle is simply evidence that you don't really have much of an understanding of the philosophical background to the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils or of how the Aristotelian tradition evolved in the Patristic period.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, some people on this forum, and elsewhere, in their fear of anything 'Latin' seem to have embraced Lutheran or other heretical understandings of the Eucharist.

Fifth, rejecting transubstantiation amounts to a rejection of the main ways that Orthodox have responded to Protestantism, which very early on they had to do, despite what some people here have claimed about Orthodoxy somehow being immune to threats from Protestantism. From St Peter Mogila to Fr Michael Pomazansky, we can find many, many examples of Orthodox theologians who are happy to use this language, either exclusively or alongside other language. I've read quite a lot of anti-Latin polemic and prior to the second half of the 20th century, I can't find a single Orthodox writer who identifies transubstantiation as one of the differences between the Orthodox and the Latins, in contrast to the dozens who identify Orthodox acceptance of transubstantiation as one of the chief differences with Protestants. To reject transubstantiation means to reject 400 years of Orthodox theological tradition, something I'm not at all prepared to do!

 

[Achronos]

Fantastic post Samn! And yes he has quite an interesting blog.

Could the Orthodox have a phobia of approaching theology in an Aquinatic fashion? I think it's important to note that while a scholastic approach may be beneficial in understanding something, we must reserve some caution not to equate that with divine revelation. I have no problem with folks using Aristotlellian language and concepts to use as descriptors, that being said.

In Christ,
Achronos

 

[Papist]

Fantastic post Samn! And yes he has quite an interesting blog.

Could the Orthodox have a phobia of approaching theology in an Aquinatic fashion? I think it's important to note that while a scholastic approach may be beneficial in understanding something, we must reserve some caution not to equate that with divine revelation. I have no problem with folks using Aristotlellian language and concepts to use as descriptors, that being said.

In Christ,
Achronos

That is not what you said last night.

 

[Achronos]

Fantastic post Samn! And yes he has quite an interesting blog.

Could the Orthodox have a phobia of approaching theology in an Aquinatic fashion? I think it's important to note that while a scholastic approach may be beneficial in understanding something, we must reserve some caution not to equate that with divine revelation. I have no problem with folks using Aristotlellian language and concepts to use as descriptors, that being said.

In Christ,
Achronos

That is not what you said last night.

Are we going to approach last night apophatically?  

Psst, I know you have me confused with someone else.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Look, let me explain the reasons why I'm troubled when Orthodox criticize the concept of transubstantiation on the grounds that it's too "Latin" or too "Aristotelian".

First of all, this fits into the pattern of knee-jerk anti-Latinism that often mars popular Orthodox apologetics. Whether something is used by the Latins has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Third, by rejecting anything that smacks of 'Aristotelianism' one runs the risk of rejecting much of the Orthodox theological heritage, including virtually all Orthodox Christological and Triadological language. Saying that the Fathers didn't use Aristotle is simply evidence that you don't really have much of an understanding of the philosophical background to the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils or of how the Aristotelian tradition evolved in the Patristic period.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, some people on this forum, and elsewhere, in their fear of anything 'Latin' seem to have embraced Lutheran or other heretical understandings of the Eucharist.

Fifth, rejecting transubstantiation amounts to a rejection of the main ways that Orthodox have responded to Protestantism, which very early on they had to do, despite what some people here have claimed about Orthodoxy somehow being immune to threats from Protestantism. From St Peter Mogila to Fr Michael Pomazansky, we can find many, many examples of Orthodox theologians who are happy to use this language, either exclusively or alongside other language. I've read quite a lot of anti-Latin polemic and prior to the second half of the 20th century, I can't find a single Orthodox writer who identifies transubstantiation as one of the differences between the Orthodox and the Latins, in contrast to the dozens who identify Orthodox acceptance of transubstantiation as one of the chief differences with Protestants. To reject transubstantiation means to reject 400 years of Orthodox theological tradition, something I'm not at all prepared to do!

Tell me, do you typically describe Christ as being out of two natures and as one incarnate nature? Or do you normally confess that the Word is of similar substance with the Father without variation?

 

[Samn!]

Regarding Aquinas, I think we need to be very careful about criticizing his method as such, since in many ways it very closely resembles that of the Orthodox Fathers from the time of Chalcedon on who had a very close engagement with Aristotelian/Porphyrian logic in order to defend the (neo-) Chalcedonian understanding of the Incarnation. I've already mentioned some such Fathers-- Leontius, Justinian, Anastasius the Sinaite, St John of Damascus. The Arab Orthodox tradition is especially rich in theological engagement with Aristotelian philosophy-- you can see for yourself as most of Theodore Abu Qurra's works are now easily available in John Lamoreaux's excellent translation, and some of the works of the great 11th century example of Arab Orthodox 'scholasticism', Abdallah ibn al-Fadl, are slowly trickling into availability in English. So, much of what gets called 'scholasticism' at least in terms of engagement with Aristotle really had its origins in the East and not in some kind of preternaturally defective 'Latin mentality.'

In terms of Orthodox engagement with Aquinas, I think that it's more prudent to recognize first of all that he's working within an intellectual tradition that's not so distant from the broad sweet of the Orthodox tradition, but that he did make certain philosophical moves that are just plain wrong, such as his understanding of divine simplicity, which in any case he's taking whole hog from Avicenna. David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West, which is somewhat blemished by its needlessly polemical and anti-Latin to the point of being borderline-paranoid afterward, nevertheless does an excellent job of demonstrating that the significant differences between Aquinas and St Gregory Palamas go back to their making use of divergent strains of the Aristotelian tradition.....

 

[Samn!]

Look, let me explain the reasons why I'm troubled when Orthodox criticize the concept of transubstantiation on the grounds that it's too "Latin" or too "Aristotelian".

First of all, this fits into the pattern of knee-jerk anti-Latinism that often mars popular Orthodox apologetics. Whether something is used by the Latins has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Third, by rejecting anything that smacks of 'Aristotelianism' one runs the risk of rejecting much of the Orthodox theological heritage, including virtually all Orthodox Christological and Triadological language. Saying that the Fathers didn't use Aristotle is simply evidence that you don't really have much of an understanding of the philosophical background to the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils or of how the Aristotelian tradition evolved in the Patristic period.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, some people on this forum, and elsewhere, in their fear of anything 'Latin' seem to have embraced Lutheran or other heretical understandings of the Eucharist.

Fifth, rejecting transubstantiation amounts to a rejection of the main ways that Orthodox have responded to Protestantism, which very early on they had to do, despite what some people here have claimed about Orthodoxy somehow being immune to threats from Protestantism. From St Peter Mogila to Fr Michael Pomazansky, we can find many, many examples of Orthodox theologians who are happy to use this language, either exclusively or alongside other language. I've read quite a lot of anti-Latin polemic and prior to the second half of the 20th century, I can't find a single Orthodox writer who identifies transubstantiation as one of the differences between the Orthodox and the Latins, in contrast to the dozens who identify Orthodox acceptance of transubstantiation as one of the chief differences with Protestants. To reject transubstantiation means to reject 400 years of Orthodox theological tradition, something I'm not at all prepared to do!

Tell me, do you typically describe Christ as being out of two natures and as one incarnate nature?

In accordance with the Council of 553, Christ is one hypostasis and prosopon in and out of two natures.

 

[Cyrillic]

Tell me, do you typically describe Christ as being out of two natures and as one incarnate nature?

Where does that question come from?

 

[Samn!]

For reasons I can't follow, he seems to want to know if I'm a Severian or not.....

 

[Cyrillic]

For reasons I can't follow, he seems to want to know if I'm a Severian or not.....

There can be only one true Severian on this forum.

 

[Papist]

In Christ,
Achronos
[/quote]
That is not what you said last night.
[/quote]
Are we going to approach last night apophatically?  

Psst, I know you have me confused with someone else.
[/quote]
Sorry, your avatar had my head all confused. I was refering to Todd.

 

[Cavaradossi]

For reasons I can't follow, he seems to want to know if I'm a Severian or not.....

Not at all. I want to know if your primary way of describing Christ is by confessing Him to be one incarnate nature and out if two natures, or if you prefer to to confess in two natures, two energies, etc. Also I would like to know if you primarily confess Christ to be homoousion with the Father or homoiousion with the Father without variation.

 

[Samn!]

What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

 

[Cyrillic]

What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

Don't you see what he's trying to say?

 

[Samn!]

Honestly, I don't....

 

[Iconodule]

It's just one more way of avoiding the historical and Patristic points that Samn raised.

 

[Cyrillic]

Honestly, I don't....

I guess that he's saying that people shouldn't make a big fuss on issues about semantics.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What's your point? We're getting a bit past the borderline of trolling here.

It has nothing to do with the Orthodoxy of your beliefs, nor is it a trick question. All of the formulae I presented are Orthodox in content, but I would like to know if you use some of them as a primary mode of confession over the others. I suspect strongly, for example, that you, like most Chalcedonian Orthodox acknowledge the formula out of two natures as well as one incarnate nature of the Word of God, but primarily use the formula in two natures for your Christological thought. Similarly, I suspect you probably use the formula homoousion with the Father exclusively. Is this not the case?

 

[Samn!]

I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?

 

[Cyrillic]

I accept the decisions of all seven ecumenical councils regarding Christological and Triadological language  (Which, by the way, requires both 'out of' and 'in' when talking about the natures of Christ in one hypostasis and prosopon). Now what's your point?

Read the post above you.