Fully Bread Fully God

[Formosus]

The Meyendorf quote , I think, can be used to support a complete transformation of the Eucharistic elements. I don’t think it really supports what the second selection is saying.

Also I beleive the Fathers of the Synod of Jerusalem would disagree with the second author

"DECREE XVII.

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated <144> above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night wherein He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat ye; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink ye all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, <145> transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin {Mary ELC}, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}" catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

It outright condemns the notion of Consubstantiation and affirms the Universal and Apostolic belief that the Bread and Wine are mystically transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ and that the substances of Bread and Wine disappear, but their appearances remain.

 

[trophybearer]

The bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. We wouldn’t reserve it if we didn’t believe it is exactly that and continues on as such. That’s all anyone really needs to know.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The Meyendorf quote , I think, can be used to support a complete transformation of the Eucharistic elements. I don’t think it really supports what the second selection is saying.
Also I beleive the Fathers of the Synod of Jerusalem would disagree with the second author
(snip)
It outright condemns the notion of Consubstantiation and affirms the Universal and Apostolic belief that the Bread and Wine are mystically transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ and that the substances of Bread and Wine disappear, but their appearances remain.

I disagree with you re the Meyendorff quote; it explicitly links the Eucharistic elements with the Incarnation, in which Christ is both truly God and truly Man. Really, the strict western doctrine of transubstantiation is nothing less than Eucharistic Docetism.

Re: the Synod of Jerusalem- it is well-known that this Synod, especially with regard to sacramental doctrine, was heavily influenced by western theology, and is somewhat of an aberration. One Synod cannot be picked out as representing the mind of Orthodoxy on an issue, and the Synod of Jerusalem is not well-regarded in modern Orthodoxy. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

The bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. We wouldn’t reserve it if we didn’t believe it is exactly that and continues on as such. That’s all anyone really needs to know.

Exactly, and, just to make clear, the position I am espousing does not in any way deny what you siad. Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

I disagree with you re the Meyendorff quote; it explicitly links the Eucharistic elements with the Incarnation, in which Christ is both truly God and truly Man. Really, the strict western doctrine of transubstantiation is nothing less than Eucharistic Docetism.

There’s the problem, brother. We can indeed compare the transformed Christ after the Resurrection with the Eucharist. But I think you are focusing on the wrong element of the analogy.

You believe “Christ is fully man, and fully God,” and this leads you to believe that it is possible that there is still bread as true bread ALONG WITH Christ, our Redeemer in some Mysterious way. What you seem to fail to realize is that when the Church claims that “Even today, Christ is fully man, and fully God,” the Church NEVER, EVER, EVER intends for this to mean that the nature of Christ’s humanity NOW is completely the same as OUR OWN humanity. The humanity that Christ possesses is COMPLETELY changed (as St. Paul so forcefully teaches in Romans) - it is no longer “human” in exactly the same way you or I are “human.” It is “human” in form, but not in essence.

Let me explain Transubstantiation to you in a way that perhaps an Eastern will understand. You need to understand, re-imbibe, or recall (depending on your level of knowledge) the teaching of the early Fathers on the essences of creation. The essence of the animal nature is corruptibility. The essence of man is different - it consists of two things - the animal nature that is corruptible and subject to death, and an immortal, spiritual, rational soul. These two things make man what he is.

St. Paul teaches us that at the Resurrection of the dead, Christ shed his mortal (i.e., animal) nature. His humanity has been divinized. There is absolutely nothing of the animal nature left in Christ. However, Christ is said to be “human” still because of his human soul.

NOW, let your mind ponder the analogy with the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, every Father of the Church has asserted that the bread CHANGES or TRANSFORMS to Christ our Lord. Many of these Fathers also make the analogy between the Eucharist and the Incarnation. The mistake in your belief is that you assume that the bread being transformed in the Eucharist is EXACTLY analogous to the human nature being transformed in the Incarnation. The fact is brother, there is a HUUUUUUGE difference, and it rests in this:

We can ONLY say that Christ is human, though the human nature has been transformed, BECAUSE human nature has a rational soul. The rational soul truly remains, though it has been changed, but ALL ITS CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS HAVE INDEED BEEN TRANSFORMED. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT OF THE CORRUPTIBLE NATURE OF HUMANITY.

Now consider this - WHAT IS THE NATURE OF BREAD? Answer: The nature of bread consists of only one thing - its CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE ESSENCE OR NATURE OF BREAD EXCEPT ITS CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS. When the Fathers teach that the bread transforms into Christ, EVERYTHING that makes bread what it is - i.e., it’s corruptible elements - BECOMES TRANSFORMED INTO THE FOOD FOR IMMORTALITY. Since the very nature of bread consists ONLY of its corruptible elements, then if all the corruptible elements are transformed, then the nature or essence of bread is truly no longer there. It just APPEARS to be bread, but it no longer has - not one bit - the corruptible essence or nature of “bread” whatsover.

So the error in your interpretation of the analogy is this - When humanity was transformed in Christ, even though everything about it that was corruptible no longer remains, there really IS something in Christ that is TRULY of the human nature or essence that still remains- i.e., the rational, immortal soul. Thus, we can correctly and properly say that the Son is Man.

But bread has NOTHING else about the nature of bread that makes it bread except its corruptible nature. Since this corruptible nature is completely changed into something else, it no longer has the nature of bread whatsoever, except its appearance.

If you want to brush up on the patristic understanding of the distinguishing essences of creation (i.e., mineral nature, vegetable nature, animal nature, and human nature), I suggest you read St. Clement of Alexandria, or St. Basil of Caesarea.

I hope that helps.

Re: the Synod of Jerusalem- it is well-known that this Synod, especially with regard to sacramental doctrine, was heavily influenced by western theology, and is somewhat of an aberration. One Synod cannot be picked out as representing the mind of Orthodoxy on an issue, and the Synod of Jerusalem is not well-regarded in modern Orthodoxy. Joe

How sad, given its orthodoxy. I think these certain EO are more concerned about being anti-Latin then with being Orthodox.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[eucharisteo]

He holds that it is the body and blood of Christ too. I didn’t quote properly.

 

[eucharisteo]

Nope, wrong, He originally posted that he thought the Orthodox had the same exact belief as Catholics…that there is no bread or wine left that it is all body and all blood, only the accidents/properties of bread and wine remain. But he chose th check it out and someone said something different. Either somethings being missing in the translation between his source and us or else. The Orthodox do believe in the real presence as well of course, they were right there with us from the beginning.

 

[eucharisteo]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

There’s the problem, brother. We can indeed compare the transformed Christ after the Resurrection with the Eucharist. But I think you are focusing on the wrong element of the analogy.

You believe “Christ is fully man, and fully God,” and this leads you to believe that it is possible that there is still bread as true bread ALONG WITH Christ, our Redeemer in some Mysterious way. What you seem to fail to realize is that when the Church claims that “Even today, Christ is fully man, and fully God,” the Church NEVER, EVER, EVER intends for this to mean that the nature of Christ’s humanity NOW is completely the same as OUR OWN humanity. The humanity that Christ possesses is COMPLETELY changed (as St. Paul so forcefully teaches in Romans) - it is no longer “human” in exactly the same way you or I are “human.” It is “human” in form, but not in essence.

…

Blessings,
Marduk

It’s hard to highlight what I wanted to but here is goes in words instead.

Remember that Mary was made perfect, like Eve in the beginning. That was so that she could be the perfect vessel for the incarnation. Jesus too was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was Perfect, bot Divine God and Man. His humanity was the same as Adam in the beginning. This gave me headaches in the beginning. It took a while to work out of the fundamentalism in me and realize that this must be true. I believe people forget that Eve and Adam chose to sin, it was a very grave sin indeed. That is why the punishment was so severe. But God gave us a second chance. Only this sin had such a grave affect on mankind that we now suffer from original sin, which by the way should be changed to The Sin That Caused Mankind to Have an Inclination To Have a Difficult Time to Resist Sin". So maybe this is why they named it “original sin”…must easier.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Mardukm wrote:

You believe “Christ is fully man, and fully God,” and this leads you to believe that it is possible that there is still bread as true bread ALONG WITH Christ, our Redeemer in some Mysterious way. What you seem to fail to realize is that when the Church claims that “Even today, Christ is fully man, and fully God,” the Church NEVER, EVER, EVER intends for this to mean that the nature of Christ’s humanity NOW is completely the same as OUR OWN humanity. The humanity that Christ possesses is COMPLETELY changed (as St. Paul so forcefully teaches in Romans) - it is no longer “human” in exactly the same way you or I are “human.” It is “human” in form, but not in essence.

Well, first of all, in most philosophical and theological discourse, “form” and “essence” are roughly synonomous, so I don’t understand what “human in form, but not in essence” means. I respectfull think you are seriously wrong in saying that Christ’s humanity is somehow compeltely different from our own. Remember the words of St. Irenaeus: “Whatever was not assumed was not redeemed”. Christ’s humanity indeed was of the same nature as our own, that is how He was able to redeem it.

The essence of the animal nature is corruptibility. The essence of man is different - it consists of two things - the animal nature that is corruptible and subject to death, and an immortal, spiritual, rational soul. These two things make man what he is.

Man is body, soul, and spirit. I think what you mean by “animal nature” is man’s fallen nature, “the flesh”, which wars against the spirit. Man was not created with this fallen nature, it came about through sin. All of man, even his body and all that went with it, was created essentially good, so I think you are wrong in positing two created essences of man, an “animal nature” and a “spiritual” one. This sounds like extreme Platonism to me.

St. Paul teaches us that at the Resurrection of the dead, Christ shed his mortal (i.e., animal) nature.

Where does St. Paul say this? I would have to see the verse and its context to respond to this. Certainly the Resurrection was the triumph of the spirit over corruptibility, but it did not consist in Christ changing His nature.

His humanity has been divinized. There is absolutely nothing of the animal nature left in Christ.
Certainly Christ was divinized, as we can be through Him. Again, if by “animal nature” you mean the fallen human nature, that is of course true. He however, became more “human”, not less. He did not lose his body (obviously).

However, Christ is said to be “human” still because of his human soul.

I must categorically disagree with you here. Christ retained a human body, more human than before. He is therefore said to be “human” because of His soul and His body. Both, of course, are glorified, unlike ours at present.

The mistake in your belief is that you assume that the bread being transformed in the Eucharist is EXACTLY analogous to the human nature being transformed in the Incarnation.

I don’t make that assumption.

The rational soul truly remains, though it has been changed, but ALL ITS CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS HAVE INDEED BEEN TRANSFORMED. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT OF THE CORRUPTIBLE NATURE OF HUMANITY.

That is correct, but the corruptible nature of fallen humanity is not identical with the body or our materiality. The body only became fallen because of, and along with, our souls. Therefore, the transformation does not involve Christ becoming less bodily, less material, less “animal”, or less human.

Now consider this - WHAT IS THE NATURE OF BREAD? Answer: The nature of bread consists of only one thing - its CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE ESSENCE OR NATURE OF BREAD EXCEPT ITS CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS.

I don’t think this is true, at least not in the ultimate sense in which we are speaking here. As with the rest of creation, I think bread retains something of its original good nature, which is not corruptible, although, with the rest of creation, it has become liable to corruptibility. But at the end of this age, all of creation will be transformed, and there is not reason to think that bread and wine will not be included.

When the Fathers teach that the bread transforms into Christ, EVERYTHING that makes bread what it is - i.e., it’s corruptible elements - BECOMES TRANSFORMED INTO THE FOOD FOR IMMORTALITY. Since the very nature of bread consists ONLY of its corruptible elements, then if all the corruptible elements are transformed, then the nature or essence of bread is truly no longer there. It just APPEARS to be bread, but it no longer has - not one bit - the corruptible essence or nature of “bread” whatsover.

I believe you are wrong here. Bread and wine are not obliterated, because they are capable of being transformed, just like anything that was created can be. There will be wine in the Kingdom of God; we know this because Christ said at the Last Supper “I tell you I will not drink this wine again until I drink it new in the Kingdom”. If there can be wine, there certainly be bread also, new bread and new wine. And that is exactly what we recieve in the Eucharist, new bread and new wine, along with the glorified body and blood of Christ. Thus, the bread and wine are not obliterated, they are transformed, just as in His glorification Christ’s humanity isn’t obliterated, it is transformed. That is exactly the analogy that the Fathers make.

I respectfully suggest to you, brother Mardukm, that in attempting to defend the western doctrine of transsubstantiation, you have inadvertantly compromised the classic, Chalcedonian, Orthodox teaching on the nature of Christ; that He is fully God and fully Man (including body, soul, will, etc.). So really, the Orthodox teaching on the Eucharist is linked inextricably with the Orthodox teaching on the Incarnation. Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

Mardukm:

You believe “Christ is fully man, and fully God,” and this leads you to believe that it is possible that there is still bread as true bread ALONG WITH Christ, our Redeemer in some Mysterious way. What you seem to fail to realize is that when the Church claims that “Even today, Christ is fully man, and fully God,” the Church NEVER, EVER, EVER intends for this to mean that the nature of Christ’s humanity NOW is completely the same as OUR OWN humanity. The humanity that Christ possesses is COMPLETELY changed (as St. Paul so forcefully teaches in Romans) - it is no longer “human” in exactly the same way you or I are “human.” It is “human” in form, but not in essence.

Well, first of all, in most philosophical and theological discourse, “form” and “essence” are roughly synonomous, so I don’t understand what “human in form, but not in essence” means.

How ironic that you can’t (or perhaps you refuse to) distinguish between form and essence, especially since the distinction is inherent in the patristic theology on the Trinity. If you don’t believe form and essence are distinguishable, how do you suppose the Fathers were able to distinguish between ousia and hypostasis? The theology of the Latins on the Eucharist is much more consistent with patristic thought than modern Eastern Orthodoxy’s. Modern EO have repudiated the “good” philosophy that was part of their heritage after the schism in overreaction against the Latins. I know that not all EO think this way, but a good majority do. I believe Eastern Catholics, while maintaining their unique Eastern Byzantine identity, don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” in assessing the scholasticism of the West, and thus don’t reject Transubstantiation as completely foreign to their Tradition. IMO Byzantine Catholic theology is more patristic than modern Byzantine Orthodox theology.

I respectfull think you are seriously wrong in saying that Christ’s humanity is somehow compeltely different from our own.

I never said it was completely different, did I? All I said is that it has completely been transformed in its corruptible essence – or do you claim there is any corruptibility in the Risen Christ?

Remember the words of St. Irenaeus: “Whatever was not assumed was not redeemed”. Christ’s humanity indeed was of the same nature as our own, that is how He was able to redeem it.

And that is the crux of the error in the idea you propose. You believe that when the Fathers analogized the Eucharist to the Incarnation, you believe they are speaking of the UNREDEEMED human nature before the Resurrection. Rather, the analogy of the Fathers points to the analogy between the CHANGED human nature and the Eucharist. The essence of REDEEMED human nature is indeed DIFFERENT from the essence of UNredeemed human nature.

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

The essence of the animal nature is corruptibility. The essence of man is different - it consists of two things - the animal nature that is corruptible and subject to death, and an immortal, spiritual, rational soul. These two things make man what he is.

Man is body, soul, and spirit. I think what you mean by “animal nature” is man’s fallen nature, “the flesh”, which wars against the spirit.

No. The “animal nature” is not fallen human nature. The Fathers define the animal nature as that nature without rational soul and free will. It is not good or evil, but it is “passionate.” Only in man, given his rational soul and free will, is the animal nature subject to guilt for sin (i.e., things without a rational soul and free will have no ability to sin).

Man was not created with this fallen nature, it came about through sin. All of man, even his body and all that went with it, was created essentially good, so I think you are wrong in positing two created essences of man, an “animal nature” and a “spiritual” one. This sounds like extreme Platonism to me.

It is the anthropology of the Alexandrian and Cappadocian Fathers. I don’t know where you get your own ideas from. Can you cite your patristic sources that don’t distinguish between the animal nature and the rational soul of man? According to the Alexandrian and Cappadocian (and Latin) Fathers, man was created with the animal nature (inherently corruptible and subject to death), the rational soul, the spirit of life, and another element which was of Grace (i.e., immortality, communion with the Holy Ones, and explicit knowledge of his connection with the divine). When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the Grace, and all they had left was the animal nature, the rational soul, and the spirit of life.

(CONTINUED)

 

[mardukm]

(CONTINUED)

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

St. Paul teaches us that at the Resurrection of the dead, Christ shed his mortal (i.e., animal) nature.

Where does St. Paul say this? I would have to see the verse and its context to respond to this. Certainly the Resurrection was the triumph of the spirit over corruptibility,

I Corinthians 15.

but it did not consist in Christ changing His nature.

It changed his HUMAN nature, not his divine Nature.

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

His humanity has been divinized. There is absolutely nothing of the animal nature left in Christ.

Certainly Christ was divinized, as we can be through Him. Again, if by “animal nature” you mean the fallen human nature, that is of course true. He however, became more “human”, not less. He did not lose his body (obviously).

Christ’s resurrected body in its essence (or substance) is nothing like the essence of our own mortal bodies.

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

However, Christ is said to be “human” still because of his human soul.

I must categorically disagree with you here. Christ retained a human body, more human than before. He is therefore said to be “human” because of His soul and His body. Both, of course, are glorified, unlike ours at present.

His body is nothing like our own bodies. It LOOKS human, but unless you can say your own body cannot die, unless you can say your own body can defy the laws of gravity, unless you can say that your own body can walk through walls, unless you can say your own body can be in a thousand of places at once, etc., etc., then I maintain that your position is wrong, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

The mistake in your belief is that you assume that the bread being transformed in the Eucharist is EXACTLY analogous to the human nature being transformed in the Incarnation.

I don’t make that assumption.

If so, I don’t see why we can’t agree on this, unless our respective definitions on certain terms are different.

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

The rational soul truly remains, though it has been changed, but ALL ITS CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS HAVE INDEED BEEN TRANSFORMED. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT OF THE CORRUPTIBLE NATURE OF HUMANITY.

That is correct, but the corruptible nature of fallen humanity is not identical with the body or our materiality. The body only became fallen because of, and along with, our souls.

That’s where we disagree. As stated, the Alexandrian, Cappadocian and Latin anthropologies on this issue are basically the same – man was created with a corruptible nature, but was immortal in Paradise only because of Grace. When Adam and Eve sinned, man’s nature did not change to become subject to death. What happened was that it merely lost the GRACE of immortality and was thus subject to its NATURAL state of corruptibility and death. Modern EO’xy has developed a different perspective on the matter. Like I said earlier, I don’t know what is the patristic source of your idea that man’s nature was CHANGED because of the Fall. The Fathers indeed – rather unanimously – state that man was subject to death because of the Fall, but I am not aware of ANY ancient patristic source that claims that man was CHANGED to become subject to death because of the Fall. Again, please cite some patristic source for your idea.

Therefore, the transformation does not involve Christ becoming less bodily, less material, less “animal”, or less human.

I already responded to this above in the reply which starts with “His body is nothing like our own bodies.” I believe you are confusing the terms “nature” and “essence.” Permit me to explain it in different words: Our human NATURE consists of a damaged, immortal, rational soul with free will AND a body that is of ESSENCE (or “substance”) corruptible and subject to death. The Promise of Christ rests in the ESSENCE of our bodies being changed, and the damage to our soul being repaired. Again, the ESSENCE of Christ’s body is nothing like ours, nor is his human soul damaged at all. Can you deny this?

(CONTINUED)

 

[mardukm]

(CONTINUED)

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

Now consider this - WHAT IS THE NATURE OF BREAD? Answer: The nature of bread consists of only one thing - its CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE ESSENCE OR NATURE OF BREAD EXCEPT ITS CORRUPTIBLE ELEMENTS.

I don’t think this is true, at least not in the ultimate sense in which we are speaking here. As with the rest of creation, I think bread retains something of its original good nature, which is not corruptible, although, with the rest of creation, it has become liable to corruptibility. But at the end of this age, all of creation will be transformed, and there is not reason to think that bread and wine will not be included.

There is absolutely nothing in the essence or substance of bread that can gain us immortality.

Alethiaphile:

mardukm:

When the Fathers teach that the bread transforms into Christ, EVERYTHING that makes bread what it is - i.e., it’s corruptible elements - BECOMES TRANSFORMED INTO THE FOOD FOR IMMORTALITY. Since the very nature of bread consists ONLY of its corruptible elements, then if all the corruptible elements are transformed, then the nature or essence of bread is truly no longer there. It just APPEARS to be bread, but it no longer has - not one bit - the corruptible essence or nature of “bread” whatsover.

I believe you are wrong here. Bread and wine are not obliterated, because they are capable of being transformed, just like anything that was created can be. There will be wine in the Kingdom of God; we know this because Christ said at the Last Supper “I tell you I will not drink this wine again until I drink it new in the Kingdom”. If there can be wine, there certainly be bread also, new bread and new wine. And that is exactly what we recieve in the Eucharist, new bread and new wine, along with the glorified body and blood of Christ. Thus, the bread and wine are not obliterated, they are transformed, just as in His glorification Christ’s humanity isn’t obliterated, it is transformed. That is exactly the analogy that the Fathers make.

I see you’ve been reading EO polemics on the matter. I am familiar with the EO polemic that claims that the teaching on transubstantiation is that bread and wine are obliterated and replaced by the Body and Blood of Christ. That’s the furthest thing from the Truth. Here it is from the horse’s mouth, instead of the cow’s:
“**First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. **”

As with EVERY attempt by EO to criticize a Catholic teaching, it is fraught with misunderstanding and misconceptions. Basically, what the EO reject about Catholicism is not Catholicism at all, but their own false caricature of it. As I’ve always asserted, EO should simply stick to defending its own teaching, instead of criticizing Latin Christianity. EO polemicists do more damage to EO’xy than Latin polemicists ever could, because EO polemics against Catholicism are so bad, and gives a false portrayal of the EOC as irrational. The Byzantine heritage is awesome and worthy of all respect, and it is wonderfully carried on by Eastern Catholics, not EO polemicists (though, to repeat, I fully understand that not all EO Christians are this way).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[eucharisteo]

Guys, this is NOT a theology thread. If you want to carry on a discussion about theology take it else where, but not this thread. This is about whether or not the Orthodox Christians believe that the bread is still present with the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the same with the wine and Blood of Christ. Start your own thread or I’ll report it. I can’t stand it when someone hijacks a thread.

 

[Ghosty]

Guys, this is NOT a theology thread. If you want to carry on a discussion about theology take it else where, but not this thread. This is about whether or not the Orthodox Christians believe that the bread is still present with the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the same with the wine and Blood of Christ. Start your own thread or I’ll report it. I can’t stand it when someone hijacks a thread.

The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox don’t use the same theological language as the Latins, so it’s impossible to answer your question without dealing with the theology. Unless the terms of the discussion are settled, which requires theological inquiry, the question must go unanswered.

BTW, any word yet on where in the book your friend found this information?

Peace and God bless!

 

[eucharisteo]

I’m pretty sure I said that he was given a book. I mean he really just received the book when I said this. He hasn’t said much about it so far. He’s probably busy like most of us. He does not post that often on that other forum either. So it could be a while, week or more.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m pretty sure I said that he was given a book. I mean he really just received the book when I said this. He hasn’t said much about it so far. He’s probably busy like most of us. He does not post that often on that other forum either. So it could be a while, week or more.

Gotcha. I thought you meant that he got this idea from this book.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

First:
eucharisteo Re: Fully Bread Fully God
Guys, this is NOT a theology thread. If you want to carry on a discussion about theology take it else where, but not this thread… Start your own thread or I’ll report it. I can’t stand it when someone hijacks a thread.

I understand your concern, but there are some things that Mardukm said that I must respond to. After this, if someone wants to start another thread, or move this to another thread, fine.

Mardukm wrote:

How ironic that you can’t (or perhaps you refuse to) distinguish between form and essence, especially since the distinction is inherent in the patristic theology on the Trinity. If you don’t believe form and essence are distinguishable, how do you suppose the Fathers were able to distinguish between ousia and hypostasis?

Well, because the distinction between ousia and hypostasis is not related to any distinction between form and essence, that I’m aware of. Perhaps we are talking about two different things when we say “form”. I am referring to the philosophical usage of Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas which is closely associated with “essence”. Perhaps you are using it in it’s more colloquial sense of “appearance”. In that case, “form” would indeed be opposed to essence.

The theology of the Latins on the Eucharist is much more consistent with patristic thought than modern Eastern Orthodoxy’s.

That is a ludicrous statement, since “modern” EOxy allows for the continued existence of bread and wine, in accordance with St. Irenaeus, among others, while Latin theology specifically excludes it.

Quote:
I respectfull think you are seriously wrong in saying that Christ’s humanity is somehow compeltely different from our own.

I never said it was completely different, did I?
You said Christ’s resurrected body has “nothing” in common with our bodies. (I’ll dig up the quote if I have to). The body is an integral part of our humanity, so saying that is equivalent to saying that His humanity is completely different from ours. It is not.

All I said is that it has completely been transformed in its corruptible essence

I of course agree with that, but when you say “transformed” you seem to mean “destroyed”. Something can be transformed without being destroyed. The corruptible nature isn’t destroyed, it just ceases to be corruptible. Corruptibility simply means “liable to corruption”, it doesn’t mean “corrupted”, so something which is “corruptible” can become “incorruptible” without changing its essence. “Corruptibility” is a defect, not a positive attribute.

– or do you claim there is any corruptibility in the Risen Christ?

I already explicitly said that I didn’t, so that is a dishonest question.

His body is nothing like our own bodies. It LOOKS human, but unless you can say your own body cannot die, unless you can say your own body can defy the laws of gravity, unless you can say that your own body can walk through walls, unless you can say your own body can be in a thousand of places at once, etc., etc., then I maintain that your position is wrong, and we will have to agree to disagree.

I’m sorry, but to say that Christ’s body “LOOKS” human but isn’t really, is a Docetistic statement. Christ IS human, in every aspect of His being, body, soul and spirit. His body is glorified, and so can do all those things you mention, but there is still a continuity between His body and ours, otherwise we could never have a spiritual body like His, as we are promised.

continued

 

[Alethiaphile]

continued

It changed his HUMAN nature, not his divine Nature.

Chalcedon explicitly says that Christ is fully human, “like us in all ways except sin” (quoting scripture). When you say that Christ’s human nature is different from ours, you are contradicting Chalcedon.

Btw, in your last post you completely failed to respond to my citation of Christ’s words at the Last Supper “I will not drink wine again until I drink it new in my Father’s Kingdom”. That means that wine and bread will be present in God’s kingodm, therefore your statement that “there is nothing in bread but it’s corruptible nature” is blatantly false. The same point could be made from Christ’s statement in Revelation “Behold I make all things new.” “ALL THINGS”. There is nothing positive that will not (and therefore can not) be “made new”. That includes bread.

That’s where we disagree. As stated, the Alexandrian, Cappadocian and Latin anthropologies on this issue are basically the same – man was created with a corruptible nature,

True, but, again, “corruptible” does NOT mean “corrupted”.

but was immortal in Paradise only because of Grace

Paristic citation please.

When Adam and Eve sinned, man’s nature did not change to become subject to death.

Blatantly untrue: “Through sin, death entered the world”. All the Fathers, east and west agree that death was the result of original sin. It was a punishment, not a reversion to a natural state.

What happened was that it merely lost the GRACE of immortality and was thus subject to its NATURAL state of corruptibility and death.

Again, citation please. There may be isolated statements to that effect, but I’m pretty sure that is not the patristic consensus.

I see you’ve been reading EO polemics on the matter.

Nope. I’ve been a western Catholic for 25 years. I know what the teaching is.

I am familiar with the EO polemic that claims that the teaching on transubstantiation is that bread and wine are obliterated and replaced by the Body and Blood of Christ. That’s the furthest thing from the Truth.

Really? From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1376 (citing the council of Trent): “That by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ… and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.” That is exactly the same as what you just said was “furthest thing from the Truth”. If you want to call that “from the cow” then you are insulting the council of Trent, not me.

Here it is from the horse’s mouth, instead of the cow’s:
“…substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. ”

If you want to assert that “departs in order to make room for…” is significantly different from “is obliterated”, go right ahead.

The rest of your polemic against EO “apologists” is not worth responding to. Joe

 

[eucharisteo]

First, I’m Latin rite Catholic. I love the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is how I discovered th Eastern Catholics. Had my wife not insisted on becoming Catholic I would most likely have tried Orthodoxy at first. While studying EO I came to love its theology and rituals.
I’m not on the verge of converting. I’m trying to understand something that is not that important to me. Theology is not doctrine. gotta get my kids ready for school

 

[agiosotheos]

All that Orthodoxy says is that it is truly the body and blood of Christ. It is not necessary to believe, as it is for the Roman church, that there is no longer bread and wine, nor is it necessary to believe in categories of “substance” and “accidents”. An Orthodox Christian is free to believe, along with Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus and Pope St. Gelasius, that after consecration there are in both the bread and wine two realities, one earthly (bread and wine), and one heavenly (Christ’s body and blood).

This is the most accurate answer so far. There is no dogmatic teaching on whether or not the bread and wine remain in substance. EO & OO are free to not have an opinion on this matter. They are free to believe that the bread and wine are substantially eliminated. Or, yes, they are free to believe that the bread and wine substantially remain.