Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s were for example were I became confused earlier.

google.com/url?q=http://www.oikoumene.org/en/handbook/church-families/orthodox-churches-eastern.html&sa=U&ei=ytrkTsSCGsby0gG-uIDtBQ&ved=0CBgQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFH_TVVtSaw_0YqkFi12AlwgFc4ig

Follow where I’m coming from now?

Here’s what I referred to earlier.

google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Liturgy&sa=U&ei=dt_kTrLMLMjY0QHp04jqBQ&ved=0CBMQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHjooofS47hDN0Zr4hZ43V6P_NcUQ

 

[Cavaradossi]

Great lets move foward from here. In your Mass at the prayer of the consecration {I’m sorry I forget the EO term for the prayer} Doesn’t the Bread and wine become fully body and blood? This no more bread and wine? Maybe I am misunderstanding all I read? It appears to as so, but in essense doesn’t continue to explain the “how” which is fine.

Well, the best explanation is the liturgy: Καὶ ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Ἀμήν· μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί σου τῷ Ἁγίῳ. Ἀμήν, ἀμήν, ἀμήν. Literally: And make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ. Amen; and that which is in this cup. Amen; Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen, amen, amen.

The verb μεταβαλὼν literally means to turn suddenly, or to change, like changing the direction of a river, or changing the manner of thought. The implication at least is that the gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which would exclude the indwelling idea implied by consubstantiation. That is why I say that it is more aligned with transubstantiation. If we were to describe it in Aristotelian terms, then transubstantiation would probably be the best descriptor of what is happening, but we do not use Aristotle here, instead leaving it in rather plain language, saying that the gifts simply become the Body and Blood of Christ, while they retain their appearance as bread and wine; how that is possible is a mystery.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s were for example were I became confused earlier.

google.com/url?q=http://www.oikoumene.org/en/handbook/church-families/orthodox-churches-eastern.html&sa=U&ei=ytrkTsSCGsby0gG-uIDtBQ&ved=0CBgQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFH_TVVtSaw_0YqkFi12AlwgFc4ig

Follow where I’m coming from now?

Is this the line that has you confused?

The bread and wine in the eucharist become, through consubstantiation, the real body and blood of Christ

I would say that ‘consubstantiation’ is a horrible (and wrong) choice of words. A better way to say that would be that “the bread and wine, through the mysterious workings of the Holy Spirit, become the real body and blood of Christ.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is this the line that has you confused?

I would say that ‘consubstantiation’ is a horrible (and wrong) choice of words. A better way to say that would be that “the bread and wine, through the mysterious workings of the Holy Spirit, become the real body and blood of Christ.”

Agee’d

I’m sorry I crossed posts with you looking for the Liturgy which I added above. I’m seeing it now better.

Sorry about the confusion, from the EO forums the guys referred to the Mass then early ECF teaching, which was the norm of the Apostolic Churchs early on. Still is really.

The statement that threw me off which in truth is from 2006 I believe, gave me a different impression. I was on a different comp. earlier so I had trouble locating the link. I also believe the ECF and the conversion/consecration at the mass definately makes sense with the CC also.

BTW I do realize the many Lutherans pretty much believe this also. So I may be wrong but there seems to be a split there also. At least Wiki-pedia states so.

Peace

 

[Ghosty]

Gary Taylor: Think of it this way: The Eastern Orthodox (and Eastern Catholics, for that matter) believe in the Real Presence according to the same terms and expressions as the Latins did before adopting Aristotle’s metaphysics to describe it in the Middle Ages.

The Latins adopted a metaphysical language and went on to explain the belief using that language, while the East remained circumspect in adopting this metaphysical language to describe Mysteries that are beyond human experience.

As for the posters in the other threads you linked to, I would raise the same challenge to them that I have here: if they believe that bread and wine really remains after the Consecration then they should provide some Patristic and/or Liturgical support for such a contention, because the plain understanding of everything I’ve read and heard, and the fact that those Easterns (Orthodox and Catholic) who have utilized Aristotle’s metaphysics have described the Consecration as transubstantiation, leads me to conclude that the fundamental beliefs of the Latins and the Byzantine East are the same with regards to the Eucharist.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JonNC]

So the question is does the EO believe in Martin Luthers “consubstantiation”. It really that simple!

Hi Gary,
Neither Luther nor Lutherans teach consubstantiation.

Those are YOUR words. So what is it you do believe? Are you going with Martin Luther now, is that what I’m hearing?

I don’t believe the EO would sit still for Sacramental Union. Earlier EO writings accused Luther of impanation. I suspect they would say SU is entirely too descriptive above and beyond the mystery, and in some ways, I tend to agree.

Jon

 

[Elijahmaria]

Hi Gary,
Neither Luther nor Lutherans teach consubstantiation.

Somewhere in my travels I found this quote but cannot get back to the original text any longer and there does not seem to be a cached copy of that particular page below:

“As late as 1530 Melanchthon agreed with Luther on the
Lord’s Supper, but by 1529 his own views had begun to
shift from Luther’s, and the changes that Melanchthon
introduced in 1540 in the 10th article of the Augsburg
Confession indicated that his view on the Eucharist
paralleled Calvin’s.”
It’s from
[hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/Melanchthon/M](http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/Melanchthon/M)
elanchthon.html

Also there is the following but it is not entirely crisp and clear in its explanations:

theopedia.com/Consubstantiation

 

[JonNC]

Somewhere in my travels I found this quote but cannot get back to the original text any longer and there does not seem to be a cached copy of that particular page below:

“As late as 1530 Melanchthon agreed with Luther on the
Lord’s Supper, but by 1529 his own views had begun to
shift from Luther’s, and the changes that Melanchthon
introduced in 1540 in the 10th article of the Augsburg
Confession indicated that his view on the Eucharist
paralleled Calvin’s.”
It’s from
[hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/Melanchthon/M](http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/Melanchthon/M)
elanchthon.html

Also there is the following but it is not entirely crisp and clear in its explanations:

theopedia.com/Consubstantiation

Yeah, I don’t know if his views paralleled Calvin, or if he simply was trying to bring Calvinists and Lutherans together. Almost no Lutheran body that I’m aware of uses the altered 1540 version of Augsburg. Virtually all are specific to state they confess the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (UAB).

The Theopedia article is correct that Lutheranism views consubstantiation in the same light as Transubstantiation, that being we just don’t use that kind of construct. We take Christ’s words, “This is my body” to mean just that.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary Taylor: Think of it this way: The Eastern Orthodox (and Eastern Catholics, for that matter) believe in the Real Presence according to the same terms and expressions as the Latins did before adopting Aristotle’s metaphysics to describe it in the Middle Ages.

The Latins adopted a metaphysical language and went on to explain the belief using that language, while the East remained circumspect in adopting this metaphysical language to describe Mysteries that are beyond human experience.

As for the posters in the other threads you linked to, I would raise the same challenge to them that I have here: if they believe that bread and wine really remains after the Consecration then they should provide some Patristic and/or Liturgical support for such a contention, because the plain understanding of everything I’ve read and heard, and the fact that those Easterns (Orthodox and Catholic) who have utilized Aristotle’s metaphysics have described the Consecration as transubstantiation, leads me to conclude that the fundamental beliefs of the Latins and the Byzantine East are the same with regards to the Eucharist.

Peace and God bless!

I believe your correct, and I believe from the EO Mass this would be the indication. As would be also from before the period of reformation with the CC. Which seems to coincide with where Lutherans are actually at also today is this specific area. Let alone Eastern Catholics.

Cavaradossi caught the sentence above I was referring to, it in truth elaborates on the EO in a so-so manner claiming their belief is consubstantiation. However the link has its sources linked, yet I doubt under close scrutiny if there’s any validity to that statement.

The statement of consubstantiation and trans arrive as a result of heresy. Had not a heresy arrived there would be need for anyone to define anything, as I was showing Ignatius of Antioch had it right as did Scripiture and Bible.

My point is that the CC never sought metaphysics to define anything. That particular period bought a new heresy as does every century. Thus the dialogue of the period forced the truth which one may or may not choose to apply as correct. However the fact remains, who was their fighting the heresy? Lutherans claim now this was never part of Luthers teaching? Well I don’t actually see that. Read the next post.

In 1551 the Council of Trent officially defined that “by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”

Why did the council have to define anything?

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Gary,
Neither Luther nor Lutherans teach consubstantiation.

Jon

Here’s the link…“New Advent” on Consubstantiation.

Here it will be sufficient to trace briefly the history of the heresy. In the earliest ages of the Church Christ’s words, “This is my body”, were understood by the faithful in their simple, natural sense. In the course of time discussion arose as to whether they were to be taken literally or figuratively; and when it was settled that they were to be taken literally in the sense that Christ is really and truly present, the question of the manner of this presence began to be agitated. The controversy from the ninth to the twelfth century, after which time the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholic dogma. In its first phase it turned on the question whether the Body was the historical body of Christ, the very body which was born, crucified, and risen. This is maintained by Paschasius Radbert and denied by Ratramnus in the middle of the ninth century. What concerns us here more closely is the next stage of the controversy, when Berengarius (1000-1088) denied, if not the Real Presence, at least any change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood. He maintained that “the consecrated Bread, retaining its substance, is the Body of Christ, that is, not losing anything which it was, but assuming something which it was not” (panis sacratus in altari, salvâ suâ substantiâ, est corpus Christi, non amittens quod erat sed assumens quod non erat-Cf. Martène and Durand, “Thesaurus Novus Anecd.”, IV, col 105). It is clear that he rejected Transubstantiation; but what sort of presence he admitted would seem to have varied at different periods of his long career. His opinions were condemned at various councils held at Rome (1050, 1059, 1078, 1079), Vercelli (1050), Poitiers (1074), though both Pope Alexander II and St. Gregory VII treated him with marked consideration. His principal opponents If were Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini adversus Berengarium Turonensem), Durandus of Troarn, Guitmundus of Aversa, and Hugh of Langres. Although it cannot be said that Berengarius found many adherents during his lifetime, yet his heresy did not die with him.

“It was maintained by Wyclif (Trialog, IV, 6, 10) and Luther (Walch, XX 1228),”

and is the view of the High Church party among the Anglicans at the present time. Besides the councils above-mentioned, it was condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Constance, (1418 — “The substance of the material bread and in like manner the substance of the material wine remain in the Sacrament of the altar”, and the first of the condemned propositions of Wyclif), and the Council of Trent (1551).

Wikipedia claims otherwise, as does todays Lutheran church. Thus what is the truth?

Peace

 

[Hesychios]

… Thus what is the truth?

Peace

The truth is simply that none of this would be necessary if the Latin church didn’t start casting the mysteries of God in Aristotilean metaphysical terms.

It is just not necessary to concern yourself with the ‘HOW’ of the Real Presence.

It is only necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Don’t ask other people how they think it happens and expect an accurate answer if you bind them into using Aristotle’s metaphysical terminology. It cannot possibly be an accurate response no matter what the answer, your response any more than anyone else’s … it is always going to be first and foremost a mystery.

 

[Ghosty]

The truth is simply that none of this would be necessary if the Latin church didn’t start casting the mysteries of God in Aristotilean metaphysical terms.

It is just not necessary to concern yourself with the ‘HOW’ of the Real Presence.

It is only necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Don’t ask other people how they think it happens and expect an accurate answer if you bind them into using Aristotle’s metaphysical terminology. It cannot possibly be an accurate response no matter what the answer, your response any more than anyone else’s … it is always going to be first and foremost a mystery.

While I agree that Aristotle’s metaphysics aren’t necessary to express our belief, I do think our belief goes beyond merely stating a “real presence”. The Liturgy is pretty clear that the bread and wine change and become the Body and Blood, and it is not merely that the Body and Blood come to be present “alongside” the bread and wine.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Elijahmaria]

Do you even understand what I’m saying about Aristotelian thought, and how it’s foreign to Orthodoxy? If you understood that, then you would understand why I say whether we believe in consubstantiation or transubstantiation is moot. We believe in neither, fundamentally, because we don’t see the world as being a world of substances and accidents.

You need to rethink the assertion about how Aristotelian thought is foreign to Orthodoxy. I think that can be disproved pretty directly. There are more than likely Internet-available articles about the Aristotelian influence on the Patristic Fathers as well as the influence of Plato. I’ve seen them but am not in a position to go hunting at the moment.

Actually it is wrong to say “influence” since that suggests that the ideas of Plato and Aristotle guided Christian thinking. That is not accurate. But the concepts of both classic thinkers were borrowed by the Church as means and manners of expressing some particular truth of doctrine.

The best you can really say is that it is NOT in the eastern tradition to take that particular approach to the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.

It really stretches credulity when one asserts that Aristotle is “foreign” to Orthodoxy. That simply is not true. The east borrowed what they needed from sources that most accurately described what they were trying to say at that time. Aristotle happened to be one of those sources.

Only in today’s age of confusion could that be denied as you have here.

M.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The truth is simply that none of this would be necessary if the Latin church didn’t start casting the mysteries of God in Aristotilean metaphysical terms.

It is just not necessary to concern yourself with the ‘HOW’ of the Real Presence.

It is only necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Don’t ask other people how they think it happens and expect an accurate answer if you bind them into using Aristotle’s metaphysical terminology. It cannot possibly be an accurate response no matter what the answer, your response any more than anyone else’s … it is always going to be first and foremost a mystery.

The only one concerned with the “how” is those who ridicule the CC. Most in the CC have no desire to entertain this topic, but since this is the EO-Thread by the OP lets focus BACK on the EO.

I was willing to let this go at my last post, However I guess you just are not.

Thus I have “more” questions …

Perhaps (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis) and (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis) are familiar to E- Orthodox?? Or (metousiosis). Other terms such as “trans-elementation” (“metastoicheiosis”) and “re-ordination” (“metarrhythmisis”) are more common among the Orthodox? The Greek word metousiosis was in fact coined as a translation of the Latin word transsubstantiatio.

Perhaps we should have a discussion on “metousiosis” and its use in the EO.

I have failed to find any source outside of “Wikipedia” that says the word metousiosis means anything other than transubstantiation. Those who do use the word echo the declaration of the Eastern Patriarchs, quoted also in the Catechism of Filaret, that metousiosis/transubstantiation does not say how the change takes place, but only what is changed. (The Roman Catholic understanding is, in fact, the same.) “Wikipedia”

Such as found in the canon of St. John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as ‘trans-elementation’ ( metastoicheiosis) or ‘re-ordination’ (metarrhythmisis)

I fail to see the validity of your arguement.

The problem with this entire presented point, is the “fact” that the Catholic Church responded to “heresy” period. Had their been none, than their wouldn’t have been an issue or a need to respond.

So where does fault reside? With the CC, or with todays cynical attitude towards the CC because it responded to heresy?

When heresy grows, God, sends Saints and Miracle’s. Perhaps that is the real mystery one cannot wrap their head around.

Peace

 

[manualman]

… We don’t care about the metaphysical properties. As my boss’s wife said “Who cares?”

I realize this is an internet discussion and your boss’s wife isn’t a patriarch, but is this generally the attitude in eastern orthodoxy?

We latins often get rightly criticized for attemping to reason God into a corner, but if that’s your attitude I wonder if you aren’t sufficiently appreciating the way in which reason is one aspect in which man reflects the image and likeness of God?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;8676374]The thing is, Gabe, I as a Lutheran can confess this too. In fact, Melanchthon references St. Cyril in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession regarding the Supper. This here speaks of the mystery - while our senses perceive bread, it is His body

You have just become victim of your own demise by claiming “While our senses perceive bread it is His body” by introducing your Lutheran RP, as you quote to be a mystery??? “This here speaks of the mystery”,Which is border line heresy.

Transubstantiation never speaks of the visible substances as a “mystery” which you and Orthodox posters falsely make a claim too.

Please re-read your post. St.Cyril nor the CC Church’s definition of transubstantiation never tries to define a mystery, as your Lutheran perspective reveals and what Orthodoxy continues to make the false claim.

If you leave it with what St. Cyril says, there is no disagreement between us. None at all!!!

Oh, but there is disagreement because St.Cyril’s comment on the RP never disagrees nor contradicts with Transubstantiation.

Where does St. Cyril speak in terms of substances and accidents?

He does’nt have too, because he is not defending the RP against heretics but it is giving a catechetical teaching.

You may have to get off the Orthodox trolly, because St.Cyril’s teaches long before John of Damascus a change occurrs to the bread and wine which transubstantiation confirms St.Cyrils teaching of the RP. St.Cyril nor transubstantiation never speaks of a mystery as you have introduced from your Lutheran RP.

Here is St Cyril of Jerusalem (300±a.d) giving his definition of Transubstantiation. IF you replace St. Cyrils word “figure” with “substance” and St.Cyrils word “seeming” with “accidents” he confirms not only a change has occurred to his RP teaching but confirms transubstantiation by confirming the bread and wine remain bread and wine to what seems bread and wine to taste just as transubstantiation defines as senses.

"Wherefore with full assurance let us partake of the Body and Blood of Christ; for in the figure (substance) of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure (substance) of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with him…Thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature (1Pet.1:4)…

…Having Learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming (accidents of) bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming (accidents) wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ… Catechesis, 22:9 MG 33, 1104, MpNF VII, 152

paranthesis mine. Again transubstantiation and St.Cyrils teaching on the RP never defines a mystery or attempts to define a mystery but they both reveal and teach a spiritual reality that is seemingly sensed by the senses.

Gabe, if Catholics want to use metaphysics to express the real presence, that fine. But to dogmatically define it, it seems unnecessary. And to be honest, I would admit the same about Sacramental Union.

And your false inclination of “Catholics”, “trying to use metaphysics to express the real presence” is simply a LIE. This is the false problem both Orthodoxy and Lutherans have against Transubstantiation. How you and some Orthodox believe a scientific word can define a mystery is beyond all Christian Catholic belief.

Think about what you are accusing Transubstantiation of trying to define a mystery of God? I believe you and Orthodoxy need to rethink your arguments because at face value they do not hold any water being viewed from a Catholic perspective or a secular perspective defining transubstantiation.

The real reason Lutherans and some Orthodox do not accept transubstantiation deals with a much more deeper rejection of the Pope’s authority defending the RP. Personally “transubstantiation” from your position (argument) and other Orthodox posters here does not hold up to transubstantiation defining a mystery of God, because transubstantiation never defines the mystery of the RP in any way.

Transubstantiation only confirms that a change has taken place. Just as St.Cyril defines it,and also St.John of Damascus explains it.

St. Cyril, IMO, says no more than John of Damascus. They are saying the same thing,

If I followed your reasoning with John of Damascus, you have St.Cyril’s teaching contradicting John of Damascus, Because St.Cyril goes beyond John of Damascus by defining “figure of bread” and “sensible taste”. When John of Damascus who comes after St.Cyril condemns any further explanation from St.Cyril? Because St.Cyril goes beyond John of Damascus commentary of the RP.

Which according to your logic of John of Damascus contradicts St.Cyrils teaching on the Eucharist. When both of these Saints support the Catholic position of transubstantiation. Because transubstantiation never adds to what the Word of God in the Holy Spirit according to John of Damascus declares.

John of Damascus:
“The bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of God. If you ask how it is done, let it suffice for you to hear that it is done through the Holy Spirit, just as it was through the Holy Spirit that the Lord himself took on flesh for himself from the blessed mother of God. More than this we do not know: the word of God is true and effective and omnipotent,** but the manner in which this is done cannot be searched out.”**

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;8690017]You have just become victim of your own demise by claiming “While our senses perceive bread it is His body” by introducing your Lutheran RP, as you quote to be a mystery??? “This here speaks of the mystery”,Which is border line heresy.

Transubstantiation never speaks of the visible substances as a “mystery” which you and Orthodox posters falsely make a claim too.

Please re-read your post. St.Cyril nor the CC Church’s definition of transubstantiation never tries to define a mystery, as your Lutheran perspective reveals and what Orthodoxy continues to make the false claim.

Dear Gabe,
I think you misconstrued my point. My apologies for not being clear. I was not accusing Transubstantiation of anything in this. I was simply stating that we believe it is a mystery how Christ is truly present, yet our sense perceive bread and wine. I do not understand how this is borderline heresy. I always try to let Catholics define what their beliefs are. Again, if it seems I was trying to do this, my apologies.

Oh, but there is disagreement because St.Cyril’s comment on the RP never disagrees nor contradicts with Transubstantiation.

But Gabe, I’ve never said it did contradict Transubstantiation. I only said St. Cyril doesnt go into metaphysical language. I am not attacking Transubstantiation.

He does’nt have too, because he is not defending the RP against heretics but it is giving a catechetical teaching.

You may have to get off the Orthodox trolly, because St.Cyril’s teaches long before John of Damascus a change occurrs to the bread and wine which transubstantiation confirms St.Cyrils teaching of the RP. St.Cyril nor transubstantiation never speaks of a mystery as you have introduced from your Lutheran RP.

Here is St Cyril of Jerusalem (300±a.d) giving his definition of Transubstantiation. IF you replace St. Cyrils word “figure” with “substance” and St.Cyrils word “seeming” with “accidents” he confirms not only a change has occurred to his RP teaching but confirms transubstantiation by confirming the bread and wine remain bread and wine to what seems bread and wine to taste just as transubstantiation defines as senses.

The fact that you substitute words is my point. Again, I’m not even saying Transub is necessarily wrong. And Lutherans agree there is a change. Melanchthon says so in the Apology.

 

[JonNC]

And your false inclination of “Catholics”, “trying to use metaphysics to express the real presence” is simply a LIE. This is the false problem both Orthodoxy and Lutherans have against Transubstantiation. How you and some Orthodox believe a scientific word can define a mystery is beyond all Christian Catholic belief.

Think about what you are accusing Transubstantiation of trying to define a mystery of God? I believe you and Orthodoxy need to rethink your arguments because at face value they do not hold any water being viewed from a Catholic perspective or a secular perspective defining transubstantiation.

A lie. Not often have I been accused of perpetrating a lie here at CAF, and only once have I used this term regarding a Catholic, but if I have, it is not by intent. I did intentionally use the word “express” and not “define” or even “explain”, keeping in mind what I have read.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.
In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

The last sentence, by Catholic theologians, does use the term mystery. And it is by this that I was careful not to use the terms “explain” or "define. If the term “express” is also wrong, then I again apologize, but it seemed innocuous, and not unlike “confess”.

The real reason Lutherans and some Orthodox do not accept transubstantiation deals with a much more deeper rejection of the Pope’s authority defending the RP. Personally “transubstantiation” from your position (argument) and other Orthodox posters here does not hold up to transubstantiation defining a mystery of God, because transubstantiation never defines the mystery of the RP in any way.

Again, I didn’t, personally, use the term “define”. But you have a point that I must admit to, regarding the authority of the pope, though probably not for the reasons you might think.

Transubstantiation only confirms that a change has taken place. Just as St.Cyril defines it,and also St.John of Damascus explains it.

and we do not deny a change.

If I followed your reasoning with John of Damascus, you have St.Cyril’s teaching contradicting John of Damascus, Because St.Cyril goes beyond John of Damascus by defining “figure of bread” and “sensible taste”. When John of Damascus who comes after St.Cyril condemns any further explanation from St.Cyril? Because St.Cyril goes beyond John of Damascus commentary of the RP.

Which according to your logic of John of Damascus contradicts St.Cyrils teaching on the Eucharist. When both of these Saints support the Catholic position of transubstantiation. Because transubstantiation never adds to what the Word of God in the Holy Spirit according to John of Damascus declares.

Never said there was a contradiction, Gabe. Only saying neither seems to be using the same construct of transubstantiation.

Peace be with you

And also with you,

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Excuse me…going back to my post #11…I came across this ‘question box’ in our Catholic newspaper where Deacon Owen Cummings answers people’s questions.

Where to get answers…I see myself-- only myself, implying no other person here on this thread regarding discussing issues of Eastern Orthodoxy…as recalling this ancient wisdom…‘where fools jump in, angels fear to tread…’

This week a question came up for the Deacon: "Is it true that the Eastern Catholic Churches, in communion with Rome, don’t accept the original sin teaching developed by Augustine, and decreed as a belief by the Council of Trent?..and they also reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

Deacon Cummings wisely responds: " I am no expert on the Eastern Catholic Churches. For details on the Eastern Catholic Churches – their theology, history, liturgy and canon law – I would refer the questioner to the outstanding competence of the faculty of the Pontifical Oriental College in Rome. There he would find state-of-the-art responses to his theological questions. The questioner will be answered here in very simple and straightforward terms as follows. All churches in communion with Rome accept the doctrinal fabric that has marked traditional Catholicism. That includes the doctrine that all human beings are flawed and are sinners from their beginning, “original sin.”

That includes also the doctrine that our Blessed Lady is all holy, in Western theological terms immaculately conceived. In Eastern theological terms the Panagia, “the holy one.” It is important to remember that different theological terminology is not the same as division in theological belief."

So may be we should check out the Pontifical Oriental College in Rome to find the simple and straightforward answer…no pun intended…just being real.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;8702766]Dear Gabe,
I think you misconstrued my point. My apologies for not being clear. I was not accusing Transubstantiation of anything in this. I was simply stating that we believe it is a mystery how Christ is truly present, yet our sense perceive bread and wine. I do not understand how this is borderline heresy. I always try to let Catholics define what their beliefs are. Again, if it seems I was trying to do this, my apologies.

It is borderline heresy because you relate your senses in perceiving bread and wine as being a mystery, (Quote by Jon) “This here speaks of the mystery”,“While our senses perceive bread it is His body”, after you made the false claim that “if Catholics want to use metaphysics to express the real presence, that fine. But to dogmatically define it, it seems unnecessary”.

Transubstantiation does not “express the real presence” but only confirms a changed has occurred. It is the Catholic faith which expresses that what has changed from the substance of bread and wine into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation does not express the Catholic faith but only confirms a change has occurred to the substance of bread and wine. Transubstantiation never defines or expresses that the bread and wine have changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is where I think you and the Orthodox arguments falls apart.

As far as when the Catholic church defines (explains) an apostolic doctrine, is mostly due to confirm our apostolic faith against attacks from heretics and heresies. To use your logic as not needing to define or explain, then there would never have been a need to define, defend the doctrine of the blessed Trinity.

But Gabe, I’ve never said it did contradict Transubstantiation. I only said St. Cyril doesnt go into metaphysical language. I am not attacking Transubstantiation

.

I believe it is becomes a deceptive argument when one tries to use the Catholic Church’s ECF’s teachings to contradict with transubstantiation, because the ECF’s never dispute or deny transubstantiation, (if anything the ECF’s support transubstantiation by confirming a change has occurred), Mainly due because they never had to defend against the True presence in the Eucharist, because it was already an apostolic faith.