Could you restate that in different language? I have no idea what you mean in this paragraph. What are you talking about ‘the accident of material flesh was accepted as real, and applied to the substance of human nature, but not to the Divine Nature of Christ.’? And how does this relate to the debate over the Incarnation?
I applied the distinction in the same way Thomas applied it to the Eucharist. It implies Eutychianism.
I’m referring to how the substance/accident distinction applies to the Incarnation, and how it was utilized in defining the Dogmas relating to it. Basically the Incarnation was defined in such a way that the accidents of human nature (flesh, materiality, emotions) didn’t apply to the Divine Nature. In the debates that led to the defining of the Dogma, it was these issues that were hashed out, and it’s how we finally ended with the definitions we have, namely that the qualities (accidents) of human nature (substance) don’t apply to the Divine Nature (substance), but they do apply to the hypostasis/subsistence.
I don’t see how the discussion of transubstantiation applies to the Incarnation at all. Aquinas does not say that two substances can’t occupy the same place (indeed, the soul and the body are two substances, but occupy the same place) so there no reason to apply transubstantiation to the Incarnation in which the Divine substance and the human substance occupy the same space.
How does this make sense? If both substances remain then both bread and Body are being desecrated.
How is that not the case with transubstantiation?
That’s absurd. Introducing new formulas for defining the faith does not necessarily mean that a different faith is being expressed. Given your line of thinking we may as well throw out homoousios because it wasn’t used by any of the Apostolic Fathers.
They weren’t even really Oriental Orthodox before that point. Their main contact with any other church body throughout most of their history was Seleucia (i.e. the Assyrian Church of the East). Then the Roman church came and took over in the early 16th century. The OO did not show up until the late 17th century via the Syriac Orthodox Church.Makes sense, given their use of terminology. Since the Anglican Communion basically endorses the Protestant notion of Consubstantiation, it’s not surprising that such a concept would be supported by a non-Catholic Apostolic Church that is heavily influenced by them. It would be interested to know what their beliefs were prior to exposure to European thought and definitions.
Peace and God bless!
The teaching of transubstantiation is that the accidents of bread and wine remain, but Christ does not aquire those accidents. They are miraculously suspended without inhering in any substance whatsoever. So Christ does not suddenly look like bread and wine, He remains as He is and was at the Ascension.
That’s the thing, homoousios WAS used by the Apostolic Fathers to define the Faith that had been handed down. It is telling that in expressing this belief, the website you cited does not cite any of its own traditional Fathers or sources, but only cites a very specific 16th century Protestant formula. If it is the traditional Faith being expressed, I hope to see some traditional sources for it rather than the then-novel teachings of Martin Luther.
This is why it would be interesting to see some authentically Assyrian or Indian references to the nature of the Eucharist, if such things even exist.
and:
Clearly a change from bread and wine into the Body and Blood is spoken of, and not some co-mingling as defined by Consubstantiation. Indeed, Consubstantiation teaches that there is no change, but rather that Christ comes to dwell alongside the bread and wine; clearly that is not the case in Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
