www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox steps toward full communion with Rome

Now that is a interesting and simple explanation, I like it.

james

Hi,

My take is that, in order to appear more opposed to Rome, some "Orthodox" factions go about great lengths to explain away their own traditions.

In the case of the Immaculate Conception, the strategy is to deny the notion of "stain from original sin", and in that case they need to explain away the mystery of Baptism as washing way our spiritual filth. Going against their own liturgical tradition, which they claim to cherish so much.

In the case of Transubstantiation, they dare profess the consubstantiation monstruosity. I would ask these people, just read what the Epiklesis of the Divine Liturgy says. Essentially, "Transubstantiation" is just a one-word label to name exactly what you read there.

If the Orthodox do not like the word "Transubstantiation", then by all means, let's come up with another one, but let us not compromise what we learned from Divine Revelation, let us not invent a problem that is simply not there.

Shalom,
Memo.

//If the Orthodox do not like the word "Transubstantiation", then by all means, let's come up with another one, but let us not compromise what we learned from Divine Revelation, let us not invent a problem that is simply not there.

Shalom,
Memo. //

We dont need nor want a word for it. Its not that we dont like the word, as for me its neither here nor there. Its why do we need to dissect what is happening on the altar at the time of the change. As Orthodox we know that a change happens and we dont need an acedemic explanation for it. Our Lord and Saviour at the Last Supper said the words and the Apostles accepted this mystery. We feel if Christ said it, thats good enough for us.

JoeS

JoeS, St. Peter Moghila and Dositheus have both already used that terminology for their Orthodox Confessions.

"The priest must firmly and undoubtingly resolve within himself that the Substance of the Bread and the Substance of the Wine are changed into the very Substance of the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ....at these Words there is wrought a Change in the Elements"
Question 107 from Part I of the Orthodox Confession of St. Peter Moghila.

A further explanation by Fr Michael Pomazanksy:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm#_Toc514547839

Hello,


Then why do we need words like Trinity, Divine Person, Incarnation, Theosis, etc?

These words are as adequate and as inadequate to describe the mystery they name as Transubstantiation is to describe what happens during the Eucharistic consecration.

And it also seems that at least some Orthodox, even some high hierarchs, who are not as polemic as others, do use the word, as they do understand what it means and they agree that *that* is what they believe about the Eucharist.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

It is true that many Orthodox use the word 'transubstantiation'.

In Christ,
Alice

We (the Orthodox) don't need the term because we don't feel the need to explain every little detail of how. Trinity, etc. are "whats" not "hows".

To imply that it is required to agree with the use and meaning of the Latin term "transubstantiation" to avaoid being polemic is laughable.

Diak,

You may not have noticed, but the writings of an individual, no matter how important, do not, by themselves, negate or "update" the tradition. A writer or even the most important writers of a period, may be influenced by other forces from which the Tradition as a whole is not.

The tradition of the Orthodox Church is that the term is not necessary, regardless of the writings of any individual. This can be verified by visiting your local bookstore and reading the majority of mainstream books discussing Eastern Orthodoxy.

From the Catholic POV there is no problem with how the Eastern Churches understand the Eucharist. The issue of the term "transubstantiation" is actually a non-issue because the substance (excuse the pun) of the faith of the two Churches is the same on this point. The Catholic Church is even on record (see the Credo of the People of God by Pope Paul VI) as being willing to accept other interpretations of this mystery.

I'm a little surprised that the discussion has focused on the term "transubstantiation" instead of the doctrinal perspective offered by Andrew. Do other Orthodox here accept the idea that the bread and wine are not changed but are joined to the Body and Blood of Christ?

The Orthodox have terms like "Trinity" and "Incarnation" and so on because these things were attacked and questioned in the East, beginning in the 4th century and needed defining. Well, the doctrine of the Real Presence was attacked and questioned in the West beginning in the 11th century and that needed precise definition.
I find often the Orthodox create differences only because they don't like Latin terms or precise definition for what they, in fact, believe as well.

As an Orthodox, I find this to be abundantly true and take no offense.

I find the biggest obstacle to good relations among individuals, ethnicities, nations, and religions, is the inability to see oneself from the other's perspective.

When I speak with friends from Europe, if I see some truth in a criticism they have of Americans, I am the first, AS an American to agree with their point. It makes for a trusting relationship, and for better conversation when there are points that need real clarification or defense.

In Christ,
Alice

Now, now My dear DTBrown,

I never said that the bread and wine weren't changed.

In John Chrysostom's Liturgy we say "changing them by the Holy Spirit..." and in Basil's Liturgy we say "show these gifts to be the ..."

The bread and wine are changed in the sense that they become integral constituents of the eucharistic symbol. (This is "symbol" in the strict sense that I have defined it earlier. Two things thrown/cast together to form a new thing.)

Each "changeable" constituent is changed in the sense that it no longer stands on its own but is now an inseparable part of a symbol. And in the case of the eucharist, the symbol and its constituents are clearly sacred. Thus, we, of the Apostolic Churches, do not then offer the eucharist which not consumed by the members of the community to ducks, geese, or any other passerby. We do not pour it into the soil. It must be consumed by a member (usually clergy, but not always) of the community.

"Changeable" constituent excludes that a change occurs to God, since our God is unchangeable. But the bread and wine surely change by virtue of their participation in the symbol.

Looking at the consecration from Basil's perspective: "show these gifts..." we start to understand that the presence of Christ's body and blood is not effected by our actions and words but by God's promise to nourish us. In this way, we see the consecration as a process of revealing His presence, His body and blood, in our daily nourishment. This is very deep subject and would deserve a separate discussion altogether.

The Orthodox problem with Transubstantiation is not that the bread and wine are changed, but that it is affirmed that they go away, are obliterated, or replaced, leaving behind only their accidents - appearance, taste, odor, etc.

This view flys in the face of the incarnational perspective that constantly seeks to understand how it is that God came to earth, was literally incarnate as a man, not to free us from the human body and make us into incorporeal angels floating about with wings in the heavens, but in order to sanctify humanity as he created it, good and without sin.

It is a resurrection of the body that we await, but not to return to our fleshly bodies, but to attain transfiguerd or spiritual bodies.

The OCA's Newspaper ran an article written by a holy and learned monastic (Raphael) in its most recent issue that emphasizes that the body and blood of which we partake is of Christ's glorified and resurrecterd "spiritual body." This is the body that the disciples did not recognize while He walked beside them on the road to Emmaus. It is the body that walked through the sealed confines of the upper room. It is the body that broke bread with them and ate with them and through which they recognized him as the resurrected Lord. It is the body of the new creation, the new heaven, and the new earth!

So we commune of the humble material bread and wine of our daily labors that have been certainly changed by the fact that they have been consecrated by being joined to the divine, scarificed, glorified, transfigured, and resurrected body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the incarnational symbol of the eucharist.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It seems a little short of our forum's high standards to question the motives of the posters on this site, as if they have nothing better to do than play politics or as if any one of us could cause or delay Union by our individual actions.

Perhaps, we should focus on taking and discussing each other's points at face value.

With Love In Christ,
Andrew

Roy, thanks for the post, but in spite of what you may think, I do "notice" a few things.
Moghila, Dositheus and the Synod of Jerusalem have had a profound influence on Orthodox thought in the last 400 years, that much I have "noticed" from perusing my local Orthodox bookstores and discussing this with many Orthodox priests.

I suggest that perhaps you may want to consider reading more yourself on catechetical developments within Orthodoxy of the last 400 years. You may want to also look inward at the disagreement within Orthodoxy on this issue.

Both Dositheus and Moghila's confessions were approved by the Orthodox patriarchal hierarchy of their time. That by itself speaks volumes, and affirms consistency with Orthodox tradition.

Moghila, for example, had the blessing of Paisius, Patriarch of Jerusalem; Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople; Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch; and John, Patriarch of Alexandria [Chalcedonian]. The official Russian translation of Moghila of 1838 kept the term.

Also, perhaps in your haste to respond to mine you didn't notice the posts of Alice and Dave Brown.

Alice confirmed what is common knowledge for anyone that has been around Orthodox parishes for any length of time, i.e. it is not all that uncommon to find the term "transubstantiation" in use in Orthodoxy. One of the first times I heard that term from the pulpit was not in the RC church, but in a Greek Orthodox parish.

And when I initially contemplated Orthodoxy 25 years ago, when I asked the Greek priest "what do Orthodox believe?" he sent me to Moghila and Dositheus, as well as Kallistos Ware. And I completely agree with Bishop Kallistos [whom I greatly admire] that it is no problem to use this term amongst Orthodox.

Dave quoted the late [Vichnaja Pamjat] Fr. Michael Pomozansky, of whom I also have GREAT admiration. His statements are indeed an affirmation of Moghila. And he certainly is a very well respected ROCOR theologian of recent time.

Yes, I realize not everyone who professes to be Orthodox agrees on that term. It seems to me, however, that there should be agreement on such basic matters of sacramental theology. I'm not talking about an explanation of the means or manner of the change, nor by reducing to "substance and accidents", but by affirming what is really happening in its mystical sense. That term works, and has worked for many Orthodox.

I'll reiterate my point, as you seem to have perhaps missed in your quick response. My point was simply that the term has been in use in Orthodox confessions that have patriarchal approvals, and continue to remain in some Orthodox works. I am simply stating fact.

I heartily agree with your posts on this thread, Alice. Daniel was most certainly out of line with that jab, and it has no place here. I also take offense at that kind of retort.

Alice and Andrew, thank you for the posts and the chance to dialogue in love and charity. That is one of the treasures of this Forum.

Andrew,

If I offended in my posts, I apologize.

What do you think of the explanation given by Fr Michael Pomazanksy?

Can you cite an Orthodox source which supports the view of consubstantiation?