Originally posted by Michael_Thoma:
In what way is 'transubstantiation' describing how? It seems to me that is simply states that a change does occur not just to our senses, but to the object itself. That still doesn't say how, except to confirm that it is a Mystery.

Originally posted by Michael_Thoma:
Also, terms like 'homoousious' were unknown to the Apostles yet we know they believed the underlying meaning behind the words.

What is wrong in using non-ecclesial language to clarify the Church's position? Afterall, the first Council was in Hebrew/Aramaic, Nicaea used Greek.

Originally posted by Michael_Thoma:
In what way is 'transubstantiation' describing how? It seems to me that is simply states that a change does occur not just to our senses, but to the object itself. That still doesn't say how, except to confirm that it is a Mystery.

Thus, the fact that Eastern Orthodox theologians see dangers in the modern Roman position on this issue is not surprising. Sadly the tendency in the West is to simply assume that its position, no matter how new or innovative it may be, is simply right.

Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of "the development of dogma." Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable "rule of faith" ("regula fidei;" o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fulness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that "spiritual Vision" which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation. [Fr. Georges Florovsky, "Revelation, Philosophy and Theology," this article originally appeared as "Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie" in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6 (München, 1931). Translated from the German by Richard Haugh]

Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
In light of what I posted above Re:the Catholic understanding of "Development of Doctrine" (i.e. the notion of the Deposit of Faith being unchanging, but also akin to a gold mine which we must mine for the development of our understanding), and in light of the above statement by Florovsky, which I find little to dispute with, it probably would probably have been better if the term "Development of the Human Understanding of Doctrine" had been employed. This would eliminate any possibility of a Modernist "spin" on the issue. Clarity of expression is of the utmost importance.

What exactly is the point of this thread? Is it to find out what Eastern theologians believe about dogma, or is the purpose of this thread to impose a Western viewpoint on the East?

It is important to avoid anachronistic readings of the past. The modern notion of "doctrinal development" is just that, modern.

However, an unbiased view of Christian doctrine shows that it has "changed" over the centuries, regardless of what the Church Fathers proclaimed. Now "changed" can mean many things:

1) Clarification: doctrines were simply publicly defined to clear up any possible confusions with assumed beliefs, but the actual doctrines changed in no way over time.

2) Deepened understanding: doctrines evolved naturally over the course of time as Christians continued to contemplate the divine mysteries given to us by Christ and the apostles.

3) Novelty: doctrines were created over time by the Church based on influences from other religions, cultures, etc.

Position (3) is clearly heretical and rightly condemned by both East and West. The West, I believe, holds to position (2). It has always seemed to me that the East holds to position (1), but possibly I have been mistaken in thinking that, based on what has been said here. Quite frankly, I don't see historical evidence that can back up position (1), which is why I originally brought up this question in the first place. [/QB]

Would you say the same for the use of the names and phrases such as Real Presence, Trinity, Incarnation? Does the Church circumlocute every single naming habit she has just so as to not give fodder to her enemies or confuse her friends who do not bother or even perhaps care to learn her meanings?

Originally posted by Apotheoun:
If you accept the distinction between essence and energy, which is a fundamental dogmatic truth of Byzantine theology, then the idea of a substantial change in anything becomes pointless, since essence (or substance) is unknowable.

I don't see any reason why Christians need to use Aristotelian metaphysics in order to speak about the Eucharist.

It is enough to say that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ.

This does not sound quite right to my "ear."

Your number one and two are not as separate and distinct as you are presenting them here. Clarification leads to deepened understanding so I would not take them separately. Clarification also aids in explaining the doctrine in the face of competing claims or against claims intent upon even greater destruction in the minds of people or peoples.

I would not think that the Catholic Church in any official discussion would frame things as you have here.