Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks for your clarification. From your comments it would appear that I find some contradiction of terms from when and how they are expressed in the Latin rites or Greek rites or another Orthodox rite.

If not properly stated it is easy to take ones comments out of context, as I found myself doing in reading your posts.

Had you applied “holy gifts” from your original post, I don’t think I would of drawn a confused consclusion from your post when you used “gifts” to define the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

I have found that much misunderstanding comes from definition of terms between our different rites, which both begin from two different means of thought expressed, yet both arrive at the same revelation.

Thus; you believe the Eucharist is not ordinary bread and wine, you do well. I profess the same thing. **My understanding **raises my Catholic faith much deeper and higher into the mystery of the Eucharist because transubstantiation defines to me that the substance of bread and wine are no more ordinary bread and wine.

You see before the common man could read and write and believed the world was flat. My Catholic faith professed the RP in the Eucharist without the need of “transubstantiation”. Because our ECF’s already believed a “change”, “transformation” has occurred to the confected bread and wine.

But when man grew in knowledge and understanding, the world begged the question? how do you believe the bread and wine have changed into the body and blood of Christ? The Church answered these little ones appetite from their carnal knowledge “transubstantiation” of course. The question was never; what did the bread and wine change into? because this was already revealed and believed in from our Catholic faith always.

I find your argument against the definition of transubstantiation as being paganology to be false (scientifically) at best and very misunderstood. Because the church confirms a change has occured to the bread and wine by transubstantiation. You relate this to a form of paganology? When you believe the same thiing that a change has occured without trans.?

You are relating a proven scientific term such as transubstantiation to be paganology? This is a strawmans argument.

Aristotle, transubstantiation never ever said that the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. You appear to be making this false profession of faith all by yourself here?

The Catholic Church never makes this declaration of faith as you appear to be making, by attaching poor Aristotle and transubstantiation to define a mystery of the Eucharist of the true presence.

Can you reveal when and how Aristotle or Transubstantiation reveal that the bread and wine by themselves change into the RP of Jesus body, blood? When and where did you ever come across this new teaching? Because your understanding of Aristotle and transubstantiation is never a Catholic understanding of faith.

What do you mean when you say that transubstantiation is scientific? Being a metaphysical explanation of the mystery of the Eucharist, one would think that it ventures beyond the realm of science.

Also what do you mean when you say that transubstantiation does not teach that the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ?

 

[Elijahmaria]

WoW!!..You guys sure have balled this up into a bunch!!

It’s gonna take some doing to untangle this mess.

Just for starters in plain language:

1. Science in ecclesiastical terms refers to what we are able to know. Period. The Science of the Cross…for example. Don’t confuse it with secular scientific method which is a faith unto itself…heh.
2. The concept of substance and accident is no more a paganization of Eucharist than ousia…also from Aristotle…is a paganization of Incarnation. They are both borrowed concepts that have been Christianized.

 

[Cavaradossi]

WoW!!..You guys sure have balled this up into a bunch!!

It’s gonna take some doing to untangle this mess.

Just for starters in plain language:

1. Science in ecclesiastical terms refers to what we are able to know. Period. The Science of the Cross…for example. Don’t confuse it with secular scientific method which is a faith unto itself…heh.

One based on a rather faulty premise too.

1. The concept of substance and accident is no more a paganization of Eucharist than ousia…also from Aristotle…is a paganization of Incarnation. They are both borrowed concepts that have been Christianized.

That depends. If we understand the language of Aristotle not to be the actual framework for how the Trinity is, then I agree. Otherwise we do indeed run the danger of allowing Christianity to be paganized.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Do you believe in a world of substances and accidents? Does the substance of God truly have some sort of ontological primacy over the person of God the Father, as the Catholic Encyclopedia so proudly claims was the genius of Thomas Aquinas? There is a real problem with allowing Christian thought to be cast in the image of Aristotle rather than recasting Aristotle in the image of Christian thought. Trent excludes any non-Aristotelian explanation of the Eucharist, hence why I find the pronouncement to be myopic: it might have achieved the goal of defining the Catholic position on the Eucharist against the Protestants, but it has also had unintended consequences when it comes to dealing with traditions that have no background in scholasticism.

At the risk of repeating myself, the same can be said for the CONCEPT…not just the word…but the concept “Ousia”…

The same defense one would make of that “borrowing” will work for the “borrowing” that is done with substance and accident because it is NOT lifted wholesale…but it is embedded in a Christian/Catholic understanding in BOTH cases.

I don’t know how this can be so difficult.

 

[Cavaradossi]

At the risk of repeating myself, the same can be said for the CONCEPT…not just the word…but the concept “Ousia”…

The same defense one would make of that “borrowing” will work for the “borrowing” that is done with substance and accident because it is NOT lifted wholesale…but it is embedded in a Christian/Catholic understanding in BOTH cases.

I don’t know how this can be so difficult.

Well, now that we’re on the topic, do you feel that substance has the same meaning in the context of the Trinity as it does in the context of transubstantiation?

 

[Elijahmaria]

I am not blithering…

Don’t do that to me…I nearly choked when I finally saw this…

Best line all day.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Well, now that we’re on the topic, do you feel that substance has the same meaning in the context of the Trinity as it does in the context of transubstantiation?

If you mean to speak of that something which makes something or someone substantially itself…yes.

If you are asking if the substantial Second Person of the Trinity is the same substantial Person in Eucharist…yes.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8713493]What do you mean when you say that transubstantiation is scientific?

The definition of Transubstantiation “alone” which is also used in medicine = “change of one substance into another, while the accidents remain”… this definition never reveals a mystery of the Eucharist because transubstantiation never reveals what any substance has changed into, only that a change of a substance has occured.

Being a metaphysical explanation of the mystery of the Eucharist, one would think that it ventures beyond the realm of science

.

That is not true; the definition of transubstantiation alone never defines that the consecrated bread and wine have changed into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

The faith of the Church alone has always professed that the “'substance” of consecrated bread and wine has transubstantiated into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

The Early Eastern Fathers used “meta-ousiosis” which is change of being.

Trent, Fourth Latern Council of 1215 and the Latin Tradition used “transubstantiatio” which is a change of substance.

It has always been the Catholic faith which confirms what the bread and wine has changed into. Transubstantiation and meta-ousiosis only confirm a change, the Catholic faith reveals what the substance has transubstantiated into.

Also what do you mean when you say that transubstantiation does not teach that the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ?

Transubstantiation never reveals or defines any one substance such as bread and wine has changed into another substance. In fact Aristotle uses the example of a “chair” in his definition of transubstantiation revealing Only that a change of substance has occurred.

Thus, transubstantiation alone; never teaches or identifies any one type of substance that has changed, such as the substance of bread and wine have changed into the body and blood of Christ by transubstantiation, The Catholic faith defines and identifies the substance of bread and wine which has changed by transubstantiation into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation only declares a change of substance, it never defines a mystery of the Eucharist or indentifies any one specific substance.

Transubstantiation has no power to make the change of substance in the bread and wine.

The Catholic Church declares it is by the Word of God in the Holy Spirit which is the “Cause and effect” of the change.

Transubstantiation only declares and gives witness that the substance of bread and wine did indeed change.

Our Catholic faith defines what the substance of bread and wine has transubstantiated into.

Our Catholic faith goes beyond transubstantiation, and defined “after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power.” (abridge Catholic definition pg.439 John A.Hardon, S.J.)

Simply put, the confected bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul an divinity of Jesus Christ, yet to our senses the accidents of bread and wine remain these to our senses but to our souls and by our faith the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[KathleenGee]

Gabe…great post!

 

[Cavaradossi]

If you mean to speak of that something which makes something or someone substantially itself…yes.

If you are asking if the substantial Second Person of the Trinity is the same substantial Person in Eucharist…yes.

Do you believe then that the divine ousia causes God the Father to be?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The definition of Transubstantiation “alone” which is also used in medicine = “change of one substance into another, while the accidents remain”… this definition never reveals a mystery of the Eucharist because transubstantiation never reveals what any substance has changed into, only that a change of a substance has occured.

.

That is not true; the definition of transubstantiation alone never defines that the consecrated bread and wine have changed into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

The faith of the Church alone has always professed that the “'substance” of consecrated bread and wine has transubstantiated into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

The Early Eastern Fathers used “meta-ousiosis” which is change of being.

The word which is usually used μεταβολή (simply, change), metousiosis appears to be a bit of a younger word, a direct translation from the Latin.

Trent, Fourth Latern Council of 1215 and the Latin Tradition used “transubstantiatio” which is a change of substance.

It has always been the Catholic faith which confirms what the bread and wine has changed into. Transubstantiation and meta-ousiosis only confirm a change, the Catholic faith reveals what the substance has transubstantiated into.

Transubstantiation never reveals or defines any one substance such as bread and wine has changed into another substance. In fact Aristotle uses the example of a “chair” in his definition of transubstantiation revealing Only that a change of substance has occurred.

Thus, transubstantiation alone; never teaches or identifies any one type of substance that has changed, such as the substance of bread and wine have changed into the body and blood of Christ by transubstantiation, The Catholic faith defines and identifies the substance of bread and wine which has changed by transubstantiation into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation only declares a change of substance, it never defines a mystery of the Eucharist or indentifies any one specific substance.

Transubstantiation has no power to make the change of substance in the bread and wine.

The Catholic Church declares it is by the Word of God in the Holy Spirit which is the “Cause and effect” of the change.

Transubstantiation only declares and gives witness that the substance of bread and wine did indeed change.

Our Catholic faith defines what the substance of bread and wine has transubstantiated into.

Our Catholic faith goes beyond transubstantiation, and defined “after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power.” (abridge Catholic definition pg.439 John A.Hardon, S.J.)

Simply put, the confected bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul an divinity of Jesus Christ, yet to our senses the accidents of bread and wine remain these to our senses but to our souls and by our faith the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

I see now, you are defining transubstantiation as strictly being the process of a change in substance, rather than more loosely as the related doctrine.

Now given that we both agree that a change occurs, why must we define what that change is? Why must it be in terms of accidents and substance? Suppose that there is a person who does not believe in substance theory, can this person be a Christian, or is he excluded from ever being part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

 

[Alfonsus]

Simply put the person does not need to adopt Aristotelian metaphysics, but never the less, must understand it enough to actually able to understand what transubstantiation means, since that is become a standard formula used to convey the mystery, at least within the Latin Church.

From there, the person even can translate it into different language of metaphysics.

Of course the Church can and always free to adopt and discard any philosophical model she sees fit. Well actually, there are several models adopted at the same time coexists used by different school of philosophy and theology within the church. What is important is to understand one formulation within the philosophical model it was constructed.

Why choose Aristotelian language instead of something else? There is no right/wrong there, I believe it is a matter of preference.

 

[KathleenGee]

Another good response…many charisms but One Lord.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Do you believe then that the divine ousia causes God the Father to be?

Of course not. I simply ran into a lexical situation kin to talking about what is is while not being able to use the word is…if you catch my drift.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8719077]The word which is usually used μεταβολή (simply, change), metousiosis appears to be a bit of a younger word, a direct translation from the Latin.

Metousiosis was used before the 6th century by the Eastern Fathers. St.Cyril used “transform” earlier but the transform definition can be defeated later with science because the transformation cannot be seen. Transubstantiation removes all doubt that a change has occured.

I see now, you are defining transubstantiation as strictly being the process of a change in substance, rather than more loosely as the related doctrine.

The doctrine of the RP is clear and emphatic. How it is interpreted outside of the Catholic faith becomes “loosely” interpreted to understand something different than what is dogmatically stated from the revealed doctrine, that Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity are truly present in His Eucharist.

Now given that we both agree that a change occurs, why must we define what that change is? Why must it be in terms of accidents and substance? Suppose that there is a person who does not believe in substance theory, can this person be a Christian, or is he excluded from ever being part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

The definition of the change of substance is very important, because it refutes all doubters who began teaching error of a “symbolic” presence in the Eucharist, the ears of the faithful were being tickled by “another gospel” which could not prove that a change occured, thus this new teaching began teaching of a symbolic presence.

The Catholic church was not having none of this “symbolism”, so she fought back and proclaimed the RP that a change did occur by transubstantiation. That is why to the carnal mind one sees bread and wine, yet in “faith” they are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Which leaves the symbolic presence in the dust.

This doctrine separates the sheeps from the goats. I don’t believe in a “substance” theory, why should anyone else be made to believe in a substance theory? All that is required is “FAITH”. FAITH in Jesus obeys His Word “This is my body”. If one doubts how this change takes place “transubstantiation” answers the question so that one can begin to have faith in the Real Presence.

No one is ever excluded from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Pride and self is what excludes oneself from the Church Jesus Christ founded upon Peter and the apostles in the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabe…great post!

Thanks KathleenGee, but I believe a special thanks should go to our separated brethren for asking the tough questions, and allowing us to share our Catholic faith, without them having to hear it from other non-catholic sources.

Have a blessed Christmas
Gabe;

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course not. I simply ran into a lexical situation kin to talking about what is is while not being able to use the word is…if you catch my drift.

Tricky isn’t it? Do you think it possible for one to believe that essence is simply an abstraction to denote the shared being of the trinity without actually believing that the essence is a thing unto itself? Do we really have to believe in this nonsense about God being divinely simple, without parts (basically believe in all of the marks of Plato’s god) to be Christian? This is something that has been bothering me lately, I suppose.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Metousiosis was used before the 6th century by the Eastern Fathers. St.Cyril used “transform” earlier but the transform definition can be defeated later with science because the transformation cannot be seen. Transubstantiation removes all doubt that a change has occured.

I don’t think transubstantiation removes all doubt. Surely if one examined the consecrated wafers with every test they could possibly conceive, they would detect no change. That is the meaning of “the accidents remain.” The fact that a change occurs must be accepted on faith, with or without transubstantiation, and where there is faith, there is doubt.

The doctrine of the RP is clear and emphatic. How it is interpreted outside of the Catholic faith becomes “loosely” interpreted to understand something different than what is dogmatically stated from the revealed doctrine, that Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity are truly present in His Eucharist.

The definition of the change of substance is very important, because it refutes all doubters who began teaching error of a “symbolic” presence in the Eucharist, the ears of the faithful were being tickled by “another gospel” which could not prove that a change occured, thus this new teaching began teaching of a symbolic presence.

The Catholic church was not having none of this “symbolism”, so she fought back and proclaimed the RP that a change did occur by transubstantiation. That is why to the carnal mind one sees bread and wine, yet in “faith” they are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Which leaves the symbolic presence in the dust.

This doctrine separates the sheeps from the goats. I don’t believe in a “substance” theory, why should anyone else be made to believe in a substance theory? All that is required is “FAITH”. FAITH in Jesus obeys His Word “This is my body”. If one doubts how this change takes place “transubstantiation” answers the question so that one can begin to have faith in the Real Presence.

No one is ever excluded from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Pride and self is what excludes oneself from the Church Jesus Christ founded upon Peter and the apostles in the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

Here’s the problem I have with that. Several theologians familiar with other philosophical frameworks attempted to develop other definitions for the change at consecration using more contemporary philosophy. They were all shot down by Mysterium Fidei. This is why I’m wondering if one needs to believe in substance theory (or to take it further, Thomism) in order to be a Catholic. The disapproval that other philosophical systems are met with in Catholicism seems to imply that is the case.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8721345]I don’t think transubstantiation removes all doubt. Surely if one examined the consecrated wafers with every test they could possibly conceive, they would detect no change. That is the meaning of “the accidents remain.” The fact that a change occurs must be accepted on faith, with or without transubstantiation, and where there is faith, there is doubt.

I have to correct you; Faith determines what the confected bread and wine have changed into. Transubstantiation defines the reality that the change has taken place, that is why we see and taste bread and wine by carnal standards, transubstantiation reveals the substance of the bread and wine have changed. Miracles have proven the substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the real presence, the test has already been given, when one “believes”.

You are incorrect again “accidents remain” only to our senses, but the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

If you believe bread and wine still remain then your faith has left Orthodoxy and you begin the heterodox faith of “consubstantiation” which teaches that the bread and wine remain along with the body and blood of Jesus which is heresy.

Please be clear here. Does your Orthodox faith believe that the bread and wine still remain at any time after the consecration?

If you believe they don’t, then you accept Transubstantiation. IF you believe they do? then you believe in consubstantiation. IF you dont’ know? then transubstantiation will help you in your faith.

One would be a fool to test God? Scientific science can never prove faith. Faith is what proves science. Your testing remain stuck in transubstantiation, because transubstantiation removes all doubt of testing.

Here’s the problem I have with that. Several theologians familiar with other philosophical frameworks attempted to develop other definitions for the change at consecration using more contemporary philosophy. They were all shot down by Mysterium Fidei. This is why I’m wondering if one needs to believe in substance theory (or to take it further, Thomism) in order to be a Catholic. The disapproval that other philosophical systems are met with in Catholicism seems to imply that is the case.

You definitely have a problem then; There is a difference between what theologians write and discuss and what the Church proclaims and believes. IF your faith is leaning upon a Church theologian or writing of an Early Church Father only, then you definitely have a problem.

In order to be Catholic ones need to be baptized, confirmed and be able to recieve holy Communion to complete ones initiation into the Catholic Church.

To be in good standing, one needs not hold to any scientific theories. As far as the Eucharist is concerned, one has to be able to “discern” the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Transubstantiation helps the faithful to be able to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ correctly in His Eucharist; lest they be judged for the body and blood of Jesus;

1Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.* 28 A person should examine himself,* and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29** For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself.**

There are no philosophical systems or theories in Catholic doctrine. Where do you get this stuff from?

In Catholicism There is only revelation and revelation practiced from sacred Apostolic Traditions.

Schools of thought and systems of teachings are not doctrine.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have to correct you; Faith determines what the confected bread and wine have changed into. Transubstantiation defines the reality that the change has taken place, that is why we see and taste bread and wine by carnal standards, transubstantiation reveals the substance of the bread and wine have changed. Miracles have proven the substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the real presence, the test has already been given, when one “believes”.

You are incorrect again “accidents remain” only to our senses, but the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

If you believe bread and wine still remain then your faith has left Orthodoxy and you begin the heterodox faith of “consubstantiation” which teaches that the bread and wine remain along with the body and blood of Jesus which is heresy.

Please be clear here. Does your Orthodox faith believe that the bread and wine still remain at any time after the consecration?

If you believe they don’t, then you accept Transubstantiation. IF you believe they do? then you believe in consubstantiation. IF you dont’ know? then transubstantiation will help you in your faith.

One would be a fool to test God? Scientific science can never prove faith. Faith is what proves science. Your testing remain stuck in transubstantiation, because transubstantiation removes all doubt of testing.

You definitely have a problem then; There is a difference between what theologians write and discuss and what the Church proclaims and believes. IF your faith is leaning upon a Church theologian or writing of an Early Church Father only, then you definitely have a problem.

In order to be Catholic ones need to be baptized, confirmed and be able to recieve holy Communion to complete ones initiation into the Catholic Church.

To be in good standing, one needs not hold to any scientific theories. As far as the Eucharist is concerned, one has to be able to “discern” the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

**Transubstantiation helps **the faithful to be able to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ correctly in His Eucharist; lest they be judged for the body and blood of Jesus;

1Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.* 28 A person should examine himself,* and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29** For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself.**

There are no philosophical systems or theories in Catholic doctrine. Where do you get this stuff from?

In Catholicism There is only revelation and revelation practiced from sacred Apostolic Traditions.

Schools of thought and systems of teachings are not doctrine.

You are definitely not understanding me, and you lack charity. I have nothing further to say to you on this matter.