• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Transubstantation?

Samn!

High Elder
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
947
Reaction score
57
Points
28
But I never said that it's not possible to express the same thing in different ways-- very early on I made a point of stating that this is possible. Cavaradossi is simply trying to avoid engaging with the reasons I've given for why Orthodox have to accept the validity of the concept of transubstantiation and my warning about the very real danger in dismissing something for being 'too philosophical'.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Samn! said:
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?
My question is quite simple, despite the acknowledgement that both out of two natures and one incarnate nature of the Word of God are Orthodox confessions when understood properly, is it not accurate to say that the most mature Chalcedonian Orthodox thought (such as the dyoenergism and dyotheletism of the Sixth Council) bases itself more upon 'in two natures' than it does either one 'one incarnate nature of the Word of God' or 'out of two natures'? Similarly, is it not safe to say that Orthodox Triadology is completely based on the formula, 'homoousion with the Father', rather than the formula (equally Orthodox in its intent according to St. Basil), 'homoiousion with the Father without variation'?
 

Samn!

High Elder
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
947
Reaction score
57
Points
28
Fair enough, more or less. But get to your point.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Samn! said:
Fair enough, more or less. But get to your point.
Just because a certain terminology has been used by certain fathers does not mean that we are beholden to continue using it. I personally am fine with confessions like the confession of Dositheos, where transubstantiation is used with heavy qualification. But if a term needs to be qualified so much, perhaps it is better that it not be used at all, especially since we can plainly make a confession of what we believe about the Eucharist without it. I am therefore, not too bothered when people object to the use of the term.
 

Samn!

High Elder
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
947
Reaction score
57
Points
28
The nature of one's objections here is the important thing. For example, 'one incarnate nature' is only acceptable if we understand it to mean in fact 'one subject with both human and divine natures'. This is dealt with in the canons of the 5th Ecumenical council. If it is understood to mean 'one subject out of two subjects', then it is illegitimate. If it is understood to mean 'one universal out of two universals' this is also illegitimate. Likewise, criticism of Chalcedon that reads 'in two natures' as 'in two subjects' is a valid criticism of Chalcedon that had to be addressed. This is why further precision of language was demanded by each council. Someone who continues to use 'one nature' language after nature is explained by the Councils as being a universal and hypostasis as being a particular falls under the councils' anathemas. That's why we can read Cyrill's 'one nature' language as the standard of Orthodoxy but must condemn Severus. That said, I have no desire to go down a Christological rabbit-hole, which this thread is not about. I'm just using it as an illustration and anyone who wants to discuss that stuff should start their own thread.

Rather, my point is that many of the criticisms of transubstantiation are either invalid or highly, highly problematic-- the objection out of anti-Latin prejudice, the objection out of acceptance of the Lutheran or other Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, and the objection out of a fear of 'philosophy'.  It may be that there are objections to transubstantiation that do not fall into this list, however, none of them that I have seen are objections to the mainstream Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. For example, if someone wants to reject transubstantiation because they read it as some kind of metaphysical mechanism and not a gloss of 'become', then this is a valid criticism insofar as anyone who sees transubstantiation as a mechanism is in fact committing an error. But, it's a bit of a straw man, as this is not the normal understanding of the term...
 

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!

Samn! said:
The nature of one's objections here is the important thing. For example, 'one incarnate nature' is only acceptable if we understand it to mean in fact 'one subject with both human and divine natures'. This is dealt with in the canons of the 5th Ecumenical council. If it is understood to mean 'one subject out of two subjects', then it is illegitimate. If it is understood to mean 'one universal out of two universals' this is also illegitimate. Likewise, criticism of Chalcedon that reads 'in two natures' as 'in two subjects' is a valid criticism of Chalcedon that had to be addressed. This is why further precision of language was demanded by each council. Someone who continues to use 'one nature' language after nature is explained by the Councils as being a universal and hypostasis as being a particular falls under the councils' anathemas. That's why we can read Cyrill's 'one nature' language as the standard of Orthodoxy but must condemn Severus. That said, I have no desire to go down a Christological rabbit-hole, which this thread is not about. I'm just using it as an illustration and anyone who wants to discuss that stuff should start their own thread.

Rather, my point is that many of the criticisms of transubstantiation are either invalid or highly, highly problematic-- the objection out of anti-Latin prejudice, the objection out of acceptance of the Lutheran or other Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, and the objection out of a fear of 'philosophy'.  It may be that there are objections to transubstantiation that do not fall into this list, however, none of them that I have seen are objections to the mainstream Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. For example, if someone wants to reject transubstantiation because they read it as some kind of metaphysical mechanism and not a gloss of 'become', then this is a valid criticism insofar as anyone who sees transubstantiation as a mechanism is in fact committing an error. But, it's a bit of a straw man, as this is not the normal understanding of the term...


I'm just popping in to say careful there  :angel:

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Severian said:
What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?
The way the Fathers were interpreted were wrong and actually puts the person in the same problem he accused the Catholics of.
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
choy said:
Severian said:
What do you all think of this article (written by a Protestant) concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Particularly, the Patristic quotes provided?
The way the Fathers were interpreted were wrong and actually puts the person in the same problem he accused the Catholics of.
That's what I was thinking.
 

Samn!

High Elder
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
947
Reaction score
57
Points
28
Obviously, I'm with Choy here...... The Protestant writer is also gaming things a bit too by only discussing patristic citations that he thinks he can twist into his point of view. I'd like to see what he would do with the writings of St Cyril about the Eucharist, for example.... To give one citation among many from him on this topic, here's from his commentary on Matthew:

"Placing the aforementioned things [i.e. the bread and wine] in the sight of God, we earnestly ask that they be remodeled for us into a spiritual blessing, that having partaken of these things, we may be sanctified in body and soul. But [Christ] said, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my blood,' so that you may not hold that these visible things are a type; rather, in some ineffable way these things put out on the table are truly changed by God, into the body and blood of Christ."
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Also it seems that he is going into the same error that most Protestants or anti-Christians go into, that is putting as much weight on comments made by some random person against comments by those who were recognized as teachers of the true faith.  Like when he mentioned of this monk who believed in spiritual presence rather than real presence.  I bet you can find religious people today who believe the same thing, doesn't mean the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.  In fact, the Catholic Church teaches against things like abortions and contraception, and yet you have nuns who support either or both issues.
 
Top