Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[stephraim]

If we had anything like the Pope then it would likely would have been forced on everybody and then we would no longer witness God manifesting Himself by descending on Mt Tabor as a cloud on the feast of the Transfiguration, or the Jordan reversing flow on the feast of Epiphany, or the Holy Fire on the feast day of feast days, Pascha.

The numerous miracles in both the East **and **West convince me that both are truly Christ’s Church. Has the papacy grown? Most definitely, and even Pope Benedict XVI has said that nothing more can be expected of the relations between East and West than was lived in the First Millennium. Still, I see no contradictions in doctrine, just different emphases. I pray we may all be one again.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I didn’t seem to get an answer from the Orthodox here on whether the bread and wine remain after consecration, but I tend to agree with stephraim posting before me. With regard to the Eucharist, the teachings of Catholics and Orthodox are virtually identical even though there are a number of modern Orthodox who are adverse to the term Transubstantiation.

I did a little homework, however, and I thought I would share: I mentioned earlier that I know of 3 Orthodox Catechisms that use the term “Transubstantiation” to describe the Eucharist. The one goes back to 1645 (or 1640) or so in the writing of Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kiev.

Here are some other Orthodox sources using the term Transubstantiation:*Orthodox Wiki
“Other areas of agreement between Greek Orthodoxy and the AOC included common acceptance of the dogmatic decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the seven Sacraments, the original form of the Nicene Creed, the concept of transubstantiation, the declaration of the Virgin Mary as Mother of God, justification by both faith and good works, and the rejection of predestination.”

The Confession of Dositheus (6.17e, 6.17h) (aka Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, A.D. 1672)
"So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descendeth upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth. … “Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above. Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who hath received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox, and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics; but necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress the Catholic Church of Christ rejecteth and anathematiseth.”

Council of Constantinople 1727
“As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word transubstantiation, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ.”

There are at least a couple 15th-16th century Orthodox bishops, Gennadius and Gabriel Severus, who also used the term Transubstantiation to describe the Eucharist.*

 

[Mickey]

I did a little homework, however, and I thought I would share: I mentioned earlier that I know of 3 Orthodox Catechisms that use the term “Transubstantiation” to describe the Eucharist. The one goes back to 1645 (or 1640) or so in the writing of Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kiev.

Generally, Holy Orthodoxy will not use the word, “transubstantiation” because it is a philosophical term which attempts to define (by scientific explanation) a great and holy mystery. If the word is used in the Orthodox Church, there is no further explanation or definition regarding “accidents” and such things. Those Orthodox who have used the term in the past have usually been educated through Western schools, especially Peter Mohyla.

Philosophical definitions and explanations leave too much room for deviation from the truth. The Mystery of the Holy Eucharist is something that is known by divine revelation. It is not something that can be known by reason without revelation.****

 

[MarcoPolo]

attempts to define (by scientific explanation) a great and holy mystery. If the word is used in the Orthodox Church, there is no further explanation or definition regarding “accidents” and such things.

If you look in the last 2 links I posted, you will see a number of Orthodox that have no problem using the terms substance or accidents, so you see there is not unanimity among Orthodox with regard to your opinion. You will also note for example in the Dositheus quote I provided, there is agreement with the Catholics that the mystery remains even if the term Transubstantiation is used.

Transubstantiation is not a “scientific” explanation. Like the Orthodox, Catholics believe the appearances of bread and wine remain. Science is an empirical endeavor. Transubstantiation agrees that there is no empirical change. This is not a scientific “explanation,” just like Dositheus was careful to point out.

The Orthodox are fully on board the language used to describe the Trinity as well, such as the “ousios” (i.e. substance), so I don’t think Orthodox really stay away from such language because it’s borrowed from philosophy.

If you can’t tell, I am arguing that there is common ground on the Eucharist between Catholics and Orthodox, so common that I see the only obstacle as to what term is used because both of their understandings, regardless of what term or non-term is used, are identical.

 

[Mickey]

If you look in the last 2 links I posted, you will see a number of Orthodox that have no problem using the terms substance or accidents,

I noted that exceptions of the use of this “word” can be found in a few places due to a Western educational influence. But you will not see the attempt to define this glorious Mystery as the West attempted to do in the Scholastic period. But again, most will not use the word because of the philosophical connotations and the lack of patristic support.

If you can’t tell, I am arguing that there is common ground on the Eucharist between Catholics and Orthodox,

And if you cannot tell, I am arguing that the overwhelming consenus of Orthodox will hold to the patristic understanding of this great Mystery and simply refer to it as “The Real Presence” instead of attempting to define it through Western scholastic philosophical concepts (transubstantiation).

 

[Young_Thinker]

It looks to me rather that they made the Pope into Caesar. Doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that the term used isn’t Caesaropatriarchism?
Our ecclesiastical structure has withstood the worst of heresies from within and attacks from without. I’m perplexed as to how you can perceive that as being weak.

John

Well, for one thing, in the Old Testament, God supported theocracy of some sort.Take Moses, Joshua, and the Judge, for example. I see the Ortthodox ecclesiastical structure as being insufficient largely because it has been more prone to temporal attack, and the Patriarch of Constantinople really does not have the authority to make important decisions for all of the Churches in times of crisis.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I noted that exceptions of the use of this “word” can be found in a few places due to a Western educational influence. But you will not see the attempt to define this glorious Mystery as the West attempted to do in the Scholastic period. But again, most will not use the word because of the philosophical connotations and the lack of patristic support.
And if you cannot tell, I am arguing that the overwhelming consenus of Orthodox will hold to the patristic understanding of this great Mystery and simply refer to it as “The Real Presence” instead of attempting to define it through Western scholastic philosophical concepts (transubstantiation).

Transubstantiation is not a “definition” of a “mystery”. “Trans”…“substan”… That means bread and wine become the Real Presence. Just like you believe. And which is why so many Orthodox have no problem with the term.

 

[Mickey]

And which is why so many Orthodox have no problem with the term.

I’m sorry. Most do have a problem with this scholastic term. In fact, when I was Eastern Catholic, I met very few who liked the term there.

 

[prodromos]

Well, for one thing, in the Old Testament, God supported theocracy of some sort.Take Moses, Joshua, and the Judge, for example. I see the Ortthodox ecclesiastical structure as being insufficient largely because it has been more prone to temporal attack, and the Patriarch of Constantinople really does not have the authority to make important decisions for all of the Churches in times of crisis.

Sorry, but one bishop making decisions for the whole Church has never been part of our ecclesiology and for very good reasons. What you claim is our weakness is actually a great defense against heresy.

John

 

[Formosus]

Well, for one thing, in the Old Testament, God supported theocracy of some sort.Take Moses, Joshua, and the Judge, for example. I see the Ortthodox ecclesiastical structure as being insufficient largely because it has been more prone to temporal attack, and the Patriarch of Constantinople really does not have the authority to make important decisions for all of the Churches in times of crisis.

In the Early Church, councils made decisions for the whole church, not one Bishop. This is even evident in Acts where a council, not Peter or James alone, decided how to deal with non-Jewish Christians. If you say that the Orthodox ecclesiology is insufficient ,then perhaps you should recognize that the traditional Latin ecclesiastical structure is just as insufficient. One just needs to look to the middle ages to see how it dealt with power grabbing and corrupt Popes (or worse situations where two or three corrupt Popes arise) or the Renaissance with the illustrious reign of “His Holiness” Alexander VI.

The problem is that both structures are equally insufficient.The Orthodox sobornost and the Papal monarchy both suffer from various issues. The only way to resolve it is to have a situation like in the first 1000 years where both forms of ecclesiology existed side by side ( +Zoghby of blessed memory elaborates on this in his book Tous Schismatiques?).

 

[Young_Thinker]

In the Early Church, councils made decisions for the whole church, not one Bishop. This is even evident in Acts where a council, not Peter or James alone, decided how to deal with non-Jewish Christians. If you say that the Orthodox ecclesiology is insufficient ,then perhaps you should recognize that the traditional Latin ecclesiastical structure is just as insufficient. One just needs to look to the middle ages to see how it dealt with power grabbing and corrupt Popes (or worse situations where two or three corrupt Popes arise) or the Renaissance with the illustrious reign of “His Holiness” Alexander VI.

The problem is that both structures are equally insufficient.The Orthodox sobornost and the Papal monarchy both suffer from various issues. The only way to resolve it is to have a situation like in the first 1000 years where both forms of ecclesiology existed side by side ( +Zoghby of blessed memory elaborates on this in his book Tous Schismatiques?).

All right.

 

[Aramis]

In the Early Church, councils made decisions for the whole church, not one Bishop. This is even evident in Acts where a council, not Peter or James alone, decided how to deal with non-Jewish Christians. If you say that the Orthodox ecclesiology is insufficient ,then perhaps you should recognize that the traditional Latin ecclesiastical structure is just as insufficient. One just needs to look to the middle ages to see how it dealt with power grabbing and corrupt Popes (or worse situations where two or three corrupt Popes arise) or the Renaissance with the illustrious reign of “His Holiness” Alexander VI.

The problem is that both structures are equally insufficient.The Orthodox sobornost and the Papal monarchy both suffer from various issues. The only way to resolve it is to have a situation like in the first 1000 years where both forms of ecclesiology existed side by side ( +Zoghby of blessed memory elaborates on this in his book Tous Schismatiques?).

Except that Peter and James heard everyone else, Peter spoke, and James promulgated Peter’s decision.

 

[Hesychios]

… so many Orthodox have no problem with the term.

I am sorry, I have to disagree here.

It is a theologoumena (one of several), an idea wrought by fallible men in their fallible logic. No Orthodox I know would subscribe to it as the explanation of a mystery of God.

 

[Aramis]

I am sorry, I have to disagree here.

It is a theologoumena (one of several), an idea wrought by fallible men in their fallible logic. No Orthodox I know would subscribe to it as the explanation of a mystery of God.

And yet several have gone on record as holding that theologumenon… in print, no less… as has an Orthodox council.

 

[Hesychios]

And yet several have gone on record as holding that theologumenon… in print, no less… as has an Orthodox council.

Can you provide a link or something? I’d like to read about it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Can you provide a link or something? I’d like to read about it.

I believe the Synod of Jerusalem (1612? I forget) used the term, but I’m just going by memory there.

 

[stephraim]

St. Gennadius, by the way, and the Synod in Jerusalem under Patriarch Dositheos, both use the language of the substance being changed but the accidents of bread and wine remaining and not only the bare word “transubstantiation.” While doing this, Patriarch Dositheos says he does not explain how the change takes place, but only explains what it is: “Further, we believe that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the substance of the bread and the wine no longer remains, but there is the body itself and the blood of the Lord in the species and form of the bread and the wine, that is to say, under the accidents of the bread. Further, that the all-pure body itself and blood of the Lord are distributed and enter the mouth and stomach of the communicants, both pious and impious, only they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and eternal life, but they involve to the impious and unworthy condemnation and eternal punishment. …] Further, that by the word *transubstantiation *the manner in which the bread and the wine are transmade into the body and blood of the Lord is not explained; for this is altogether incomprehensible and is impossible except for God Himself; and attempts at explanation bring Christians to folly and error. But the word denotes that the bread and the wine after the consecration are changed into the body and blood of the Lord not figuratively or by way of image or by superabundant grace or by the communication or presence of the Deity alone of the Only Begotten. Neither is any accident of the bread and of the wine transmade in any way or by any change into any accident of the body and blood of Christ; but really and actually and substantially the bread becomes the real body of the Lord itself, and the wine the blood of the Lord itself, as has been said above.”

*Metaousios *, which is an almost linguistic equivalent of transubstantiation, was used by St. Gennadius Scholarius. He was a big fan of Thomas Aquinas, and was St. Mark of Ephesus’ successor in the fight against the false union of Florence. It does sound rather contradictory.

As for the dogma of transubstantiation, I don’t really see that it explains *how *the change takes place, it just explains what the Eucharistic sacrifice is, i.e. Christ’s flesh and blood looking like bread and wine. The language of substance and accidents has a venerable heritage in the Christological debates, long before the schism, and I have no problem with its use as regards the Eucharist, which is after all Christological. I think this is another non-issue.

For examples of Aristotelian terminology (substance, accidents) being used in Christology, see Leontius of Byzantium, St. John of Damascus, and (I’m pretty sure) St. Anastasius of Sinai. The Fathers have often used Greek philosophy, but have “baptized” it, as it were, and so we speak of essences, and natures, and hypostases etc. Semitic thought is not the only legitimate kind, and it was found necessary to go beyond it to deal with new controversies and heresies that arose.

 

[Formosus]

*Metaousios *, which is an almost linguistic equivalent of transubstantiation, was used by St. Gennadius Scholarius. He was a big fan of Thomas Aquinas, and was St. Mark of Ephesus’ successor in the fight against the false union of Florence. It does sound rather contradictory.

The rest of the post is accurate, but I’d say its hard to be someone’s successor when you are a contemporary of them. The issue here is that during the late Byzantine period, certain trends in Latin theology became popular alongside the more oriental hesychast inspired theology. Bot are (IMO) legitimate streams of thought (and really eastern “scholasticism” was still tied to much of what the hesychasts believed and taught), but I can see how a modern Orthodox might view such theology as a corruption or “latinization” of the tradition.

 

[Young_Thinker]

As for Pope Formosus, I also like Severinus.

 

[Aramis]

Can you provide a link or something? I’d like to read about it.

Confession of Dositheous, at the council of Jersalem, as quoth above.