Well, I didn’t really set forth any sort of challenge; just an observation. Personally, I would agree with Ghosty that our tradition does not promote the idea that the bread remains bread which Christ comes to dwell in but is instead transformed into something else (the mysterious epiousion of the our father prayer, perhaps) which is the Body and Blood of Christ. Whether I think the doctrine of transubstantiation is necessary or its Aristotelian underpinnings are true is another matter.
C’mon, issue a challenge, demand satisfaction!
For what it’s worth I agree with you that the doctrine of transubstantiation, as set forth in metaphysical terms, is not strictly necessary. I do, however, find it to be a reasonable description of what we believe if one is using Aristotle’s metaphysics. What’s more, I don’t believe that explaining something using a certain set of philosophy means adopting that philosophy wholesale; the Byzantine tradition utilizes a lot of Plato, but certainly doesn’t adopt his metaphysics through and through.
As for how Lutherans are handled differently, I can’t speak to that because I’ve not been a part of such discussions and I don’t know what has been said. I know that I would only challenge Lutherans if they were to specifically put forward an idea that is contrary to what our tradition has held for so long, so if “consubstantiation” was upheld then I would certainly challenge it. If they simply say “the bread and wine become Christ, we know not how” then I wouldn’t bother too much.
Nine_Two:
Why are you asking me to produce something that I have never argued for? My point this entire time has been that Orthodoxy does not have any deeper doctrine, regardless of what Catholics try to insist we have.
You said that consubstantiation is an acceptable Orthodox position. If this is the case then I would think that we could find somewhere in our tradition where it has been expressed and accepted. I’ve not seen anything in the Orthodox tradition that suggests consubstantiation, the presence of Christ along with bread. There have been many different descriptions of the Real Presence, and none as technical as the Latin approach, but I’ve yet to see any that would leave room for consubstantiation.
So while I agree that consubstantiation hasn’t been formally defined against, I disagree with the notion that since it hasn’t been formally defined against that it is an open question in our tradition. I view it as a matter that has been settled by the consensus and overwhelming weight of Tradition; we lack a formal definition precisely because the traditional view, which matches what Latins call transubstantiation, has never met significant challenge in the East as it did in the West.
Peace and God bless!
