Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are definitely not understanding me, and you lack charity. I have nothing further to say to you on this matter.
Don’t run off now. People are responding to what they think you are saying or what they fear you are saying. They are in lecture mode. Look at what happens to me on the other Forum. Not too much different.

So try again when you calm down. It doesn’t hurt to go around on these things. Makes all of us think things through.

They don’t know you as I do, and don’t know how irenic you really are inside. Show them.

M.
 
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?
You presume that the Thomistic representation of transubstantiation is defining the nature of the change or the how of the change in some sort of philosophical manner.

That is not what it is doing. All transubstantiation does is tell us THAT a change occurs…a REAL and a SUBSTANTIAL change.

It is so simple that you are missing it and others are treating you as though you are missing it on purpose or because you believe something else…which I don’t think is so.

M.
 
Don’t run off now. People are responding to what they think you are saying or what they fear you are saying. They are in lecture mode. Look at what happens to me on the other Forum. Not too much different.

So try again when you calm down. It doesn’t hurt to go around on these things. Makes all of us think things through.

They don’t know you as I do, and don’t know how irenic you really are inside. Show them.

M.
Why you put up with the conduct of some of the folks over there (well, really just one in particular), Mary, will always mystify me. 🙂
You presume that the Thomistic representation of transubstantiation is defining the nature of the change or the how of the change in some sort of philosophical manner.

That is not what it is doing. All transubstantiation does is tell us THAT a change occurs…a REAL and a SUBSTANTIAL change.

It is so simple that you are missing it and others are treating you as though you are missing it on purpose or because you believe something else…which I don’t think is so.

M.
So is it enough to confess a change in the being of the bread and wine (I would say that this is synonymous with the idea of changing substances) without having to delve any further?
 
Why you put up with the conduct of some of the folks over there (well, really just one in particular), Mary, will always mystify me. 🙂

So is it enough to confess a change in the being of the bread and wine (I would say that this is synonymous with the idea of changing substances) without having to delve any further?
Imma glutton for punishment 😛

But to answer the important question that follows: Yes. It is enough to confess a real change in being. Transubstantiation tells us THAT there is a real change: period. The rest is mystery.

You really ought to get to know the mystical Aquinas 🙂
 
Imma glutton for punishment 😛

But to answer the important question that follows: Yes. It is enough to confess a real change in being. Transubstantiation tells us THAT there is a real change: period. The rest is mystery.

You really ought to get to know the mystical Aquinas 🙂
On your question concerning DIVINE SIMPLICITY:

PS: I am not up on all the ins and outs of formal philosophical and theological discussions concerning the divine simplicity. What I know of it as I’ve learned it in Catholic theology is not enough to respond to any and all comers who want to challenge the tradition. For my own purposes, the premises make sense in context so I’ve never had need to try and take it out of context.

But you might want to start a new thread about the impact of the concept of the divine simplicity on the theological thinking of eastern Catholic theologians…I know that is a boggler but it will put the discussion in a good perspective if you can devise a workable title.

Then maybe you’ll get respondents who have more experience than I do in discussing and debating the subject.

M.
 
I agree we do not have to accept Transubstantiation as a concept/philosophy to believe in the Real Presence. We already pray it in our Liturgy (Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi) that we believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation is just an attempt at the explanation on how the Real Presence comes to us in the form of the Eucharist, but is not part and parcel of what the Eucharist is. I’m pretty sure some intelligent mind out there come come up with a different explanation or two, arriving at the same conclusion.
 
Yes…our means of explanation to define how bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ will always be sufficient, wouldn’t it? Human words trying to explain God’s being in formerly bread and wine?

It is akin to us finding the means in how God created the universe.

It is the Holy Spirit that changes the bread and wine into Christ…the Eucharist.

How did the word, ‘Eucharist’ develop? May be this one will be easier…
 
Imma glutton for punishment 😛

But to answer the important question that follows: Yes. It is enough to confess a real change in being. Transubstantiation tells us THAT there is a real change: period. The rest is mystery.

You really ought to get to know the mystical Aquinas 🙂
Is this enough?
“However, transubstantiation] is very unimportant as long as the body and blood of Christ and the Word are left intact.” “It does not mean much to me, for as I have often declared openly, I do not wish to fight about it; if the wine remains or not, for me it is enough that the blood of Christ is present; may whatever God wills happen to the wine. And rather than to have mere wine with the enthusiasts I would stick to mere blood with the Papists.” -Luther
Jon
 
Is this enough?

Jon
Luther says to leave the word, blood and flesh intact…But the word says (Christ says) this (the bread)is the body- How can the bread remain? Luther seems to contradict himself when he says it doesn’t matter if wine remains- the word he seeks to protect says it is not wine but blood.
 
Luther says to leave the word, blood and flesh intact…But the word says (Christ says) this (the bread)is the body- How can the bread remain? Luther seems to contradict himself when he says it doesn’t matter if wine remains- the word he seeks to protect says it is not wine but blood.
Exactly. “This [bread] is my body.” It is not a contradiction to say, when responding to transubstantiation, * I do not wish to fight about it; if the wine remains or not, for me it is enough that the blood of Christ is present;** may whatever God wills happen to the wine ***. Christ never uses the term “change”, only the word “is”. So, at least for Lutherans, who don’t use the philosphical constructs of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we accept Christ’s words - “This [bread] is my body.” and we leave it at that. Is there a change? Of course. The confessions agree.
And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper.
Jon
 
Exactly. “This [bread] is my body.” It is not a contradiction to say, when responding to transubstantiation, * I do not wish to fight about it; if the wine remains or not, for me it is enough that the blood of Christ is present;** may whatever God wills happen to the wine ***. Christ never uses the term “change”, only the word “is”. So, at least for Lutherans, who don’t use the philosphical constructs of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we accept Christ’s words - “This [bread] is my body.” and we leave it at that. Is there a change? Of course. The confessions agree.

Jon
So the wine IS blood- Great. Yet it was only wine just a few moments before. So what in God’s name happened if not change? Isn’t this nothing more than those word fights the Apostles warned us against?

I have to say, that of all the controversies between Catholics and Orthodox (and Lutherans and I guess, Anglo-Catholics) I find this to be the silliest, most pointless “controversy” of them all. 🤷 Really, if anything could ever demonstrate the human ability to manufacture “disputes” out of thin air, this one here takes the cake.
 
So the wine IS blood- Great. Yet it was only wine just a few moments before. So what in God’s name happened if not change? Isn’t this nothing more than those word fights the Apostles warned us against?

I have to say, that of all the controversies between Catholics and Orthodox (and Lutherans and I guess, Anglo-Catholics) I find this to be the silliest, most pointless “controversy” of them all. 🤷 Really, if anything could ever demonstrate the human ability to manufacture “disputes” out of thin air, this one here takes the cake.
I absolutely agree. The phrase, “distinction that lacks a difference” comes to mind.

Jon
 
GENERAL WARNING
For all threads dealing with the Orthodox Church.
Your threads will be watched closely and it is HIGHLY suggested we use charity and respect in posting.
 
I wonder for those who hold to the RP in the Eucharist but reject transubstantiation can give a reason for their faith in the Eucharist to convince nonbelievers how the bread and wine remains bread and wine to our senses but is truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ without transubstantiation?

If the Church has defeated heretics by proving the Son of God is fully human and fully divine by introducing the definition of “incarnation”, and later to define the One Godhead by introducing the definition of the “blessed Trinity” which defeats other heresies. How difficult is it to believe that Jesus body, blood soul and divinity are truly present in His Eucharist by transubstantiation which defeats and removes all doubts that the bread and wine have truly transubstantiated “taken on a change” into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ?

And if this Tran substantial change is taken in good faith with true discernment to be the body and blood of Jesus. Do all those who reject transubstantiation kneel before the name of Jesus in adoration when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed by benediction?

Transubstantiation helps the faithful to “discern” the biblical practice of Jesus body and cup of blessing as being that of Jesus true body and blood.

Without transubstantiation in today’s society can leave ones faith suspended to doubt the species of bread and wine as remaining just bread and wine as being a memorial to the Last supper instead of participants in the true sacrifice of Jesus body and blood.

Without transubstantiation one can run the risk of neglecting the worship of God in adoration.

How can faith alone enter these mysteries when sight and taste brings doubt to the conscience? The proper understanding of transubstantiation removes all doubt that the bread and wine have become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I fear if non-Catholics begin the path of the apostolic faith in the Eucharist without transubstantiation, will neglect the species and dump the left over bread and wine after a service down a drain. Which is known to happen now?

If one rejects transubstantiation, how is Jesus body and blood present in the Eucharist, when the bread and wine remain these to our senses? Without transubstantiation one’s faith can run the danger of having the bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood of Jesus, which is never an apostolic teaching or revelation.

Because they have no way to explain why the bread and wine appear to remain after it is professed " a change" has taken place into the body, blood of Jesus, leaving a nonbeliever unconvinced of a change who has no faith.

When one applies transubstantiation, this definition removes all doubt that a change of the substance of bread wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
 
=Gabriel of 12;8727046]I wonder for those who hold to the RP in the Eucharist but reject transubstantiation can give a reason for their faith in the Eucharist to convince nonbelievers how the bread and wine remains bread and wine to our senses but is truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ without transubstantiation?
Gabe, speaking only for me, I can only present the words of Christ Himself. If He can be born of the Blessed Virgin, be resurrected from the dead, change water into wine, He can, using whatever means He chooses, make His body and blood present. If I cannot convince the non-believer of the others, why would we think we could convince Him of this?
If the Church has defeated heretics by proving the Son of God is fully human and fully divine by introducing the definition of “incarnation”, and later to define the One Godhead by introducing the definition of the “blessed Trinity” which defeats other heresies. How difficult is it to believe that Jesus body, blood soul and divinity are truly present in His Eucharist by transubstantiation which defeats and removes all doubts that the bread and wine have truly transubstantiated “taken on a change” into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ?
I have no doubt regarding the change, and I have never confessed Transubstantiation.
And if this Tran substantial change is taken in good faith with true discernment to be the body and blood of Jesus. Do all those who reject transubstantiation kneel before the name of Jesus in adoration when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed by benediction?
Lutherans certainly do, and I’m sure the Orthodox do.
Transubstantiation helps the faithful to “discern” the biblical practice of Jesus body and cup of blessing as being that of Jesus true body and blood.
Then I give thanks that God has used Transubstantiation in this way. I believe our confession does this too.
Without transubstantiation in today’s society can leave ones faith suspended to doubt the species of bread and wine as remaining just bread and wine as being a memorial to the Last supper instead of participants in the true sacrifice of Jesus body and blood.
then why do Orthodox and Lutherans and many Anglicans not doubt it?
Without transubstantiation one can run the risk of neglecting the worship of God in adoration.
Are there not Catholics who neglect this? Are there not Catholic priest who have even doubted the real presence, leading to Eucharistic miracles?
How can faith alone enter these mysteries when sight and taste brings doubt to the conscience? The proper understanding of transubstantiation removes all doubt that the bread and wine have become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
For many it surely does. For others, all doubt is erased without it. Both are good things!
I fear if non-Catholics begin the path of the apostolic faith in the Eucharist without transubstantiation, will neglect the species and dump the left over bread and wine after a service down a drain. Which is known to happen now?
Sadly and tragically true.
If one rejects transubstantiation, how is Jesus body and blood present in the Eucharist, when the bread and wine remain these to our senses? Without transubstantiation one’s faith can run the danger of having the bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood of Jesus, which is never an apostolic teaching or revelation.
What do you mean by co-existing?
Because they have no way to explain why the bread and wine appear to remain after it is professed " a change" has taken place into the body, blood of Jesus, leaving a nonbeliever unconvinced of a change who has no faith.
But you said, my friend, that Transub. does not explain. That same non-believer will also question the Incarnation
When one applies transubstantiation, this definition removes all doubt that a change of the substance of bread wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ
I give thanks for this. Our Lutheran expression, and the Orthodox expression does the same for millions. Yes?

From my POV, Transub is not a stumbling block to unity.

Jon
 
JonNC;8727188]Gabe, speaking only for me, I can only present the words of Christ Himself. If He can be born of the Blessed Virgin, be resurrected from the dead, change water into wine, He can, using whatever means He chooses, make His body and blood present. If I cannot convince the non-believer of the others, why would we think we could convince Him of this?
Just for you Jon, many blessings 🙂

I would like to introduce a different approach to the RP by transubstantiation here;

Many of the Early Church Fathers expressed some form of change to the substance of bread and wine. It would appear that none of their teachings was made universal in the Church. If we compared all of their teachings to the change we would find that later years science defeats their change of substance. The only one the universal Church finally uses to define and refute all doubt from both secular thought and religious thought is “transubstantiation”.

We have to remember when these Early Church Fathers write their writings are not binding on the whole Catholic Church. Even though councils would later use “some” of their writings to confirm a Council findings.

Although the Orthodox would hold to the Early Church Fathers confirmation of a change, but their ancient understanding of the change does not suffice the whole of Christendom in every age. The Catholic Church finally gives credence and faith that a change is truly manifested by transubstantiation to every age past, present and future generations.

Read the highlighted words our ECF’s chose in describing a change.

St. John Chrysostom “ astonished at His unspeakable gift, blessing Him, among other things, for the **pouring **it out, but also for the **imparting **thereof to us all”…

“For His Word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. His Word has never failed, but our senses in most things go wrong”…
“For as bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains nowhere appear; they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction; so we are cojoined both with each other and with Christ;

“He also comingles Himself with us, and not be faith only, but also in very deed makes us His body…What then ought not he to exceed in purity that has the benefit of this sacrifice?

St. Ambrose “Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are** Transformed **into the flesh and the blood”
“Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?..Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem “for in **the figure **of bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of wine His Blood… thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we **become partakers **of the divine nature”…and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the **seeming **wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ;… “after the invocation the Bread **becomes **the Body of Christ”.

St. Gregory of Nyssa “He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He **trans-elements **the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing”.

St. John of Damascus “but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood…So the bread of the table and the wine and water are **supernaturally changed **by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ… **The bread and wine are not merely figures **of the body and blood of Christ (heaven forbid!) **but the deified **body of the Lord itself;…But if some persons called the bread and wine antetypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration…

cont;
 
Cont;

St. Augustine “ That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ… Through those “Accidents” the Lord wished to entrust to us His body and the blood which he poured out for the remission of sins”…

“This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore **a figure, enjoining **that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord”…

“I have commended unto you a certain mystery;…Although it is needful that this **be visibly **celebrated”…

“but that only which we take of the fruits of the earth and** consecrate by mystic prayer**, and then **receive duly **to our spiritual health”…

St. Justin Martyr “For** not as common bread and common drink **do we receive these;…So likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His Word, and from which our blood and flesh **by transmutation **are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh…

St. Cyprian “Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest…receive the Eucharist”…

St. Hilary “It is **no longer permitted us to raise doubts **about the true nature of the body and the blood”…

St. Leo the Great “you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s body and blood. For that which is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith”…

Tertullian “up to the present time, **Christ has not disdained the water **which the Creator made…**nor the bread **by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the “beggarly elements” of the Creator”…

St. Clement of Alexandria “ The union of both, that is, of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist… for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically.

St. Gregory the Great **“He is again immolated **for us in the mystery of the holy Sacrifice. Where His body is eaten, there His flesh is distributed among the people for their salvation”…

St. John Chrysostom “For when **you see **the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon earth?”

Peace be with you;)
 
Cont;

St. Augustine “ That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ… Through those “Accidents” the Lord wished to entrust to us His body and the blood which he poured out for the remission of sins”…

“This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord”…

“I have commended unto you a certain mystery;…Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated”…

“but that only which we take of the fruits of the earth and consecrate by mystic prayer, and then receive duly to our spiritual health”…

St. Justin Martyr “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these;…So likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His Word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh…

St. Cyprian “Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest…receive the Eucharist”…

St. Hilary “It is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about the true nature of the body and the blood”…

St. Leo the Great “you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s body and blood. For that which is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith”…

Tertullian “up to the present time, Christ has not disdained the water which the Creator made…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the “beggarly elements” of the Creator”…

St. Clement of Alexandria “ The union of both, that is, of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist… for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically.

St. Gregory the Great “He is again immolated for us in the mystery of the holy Sacrifice. Where His body is eaten, there His flesh is distributed among the people for their salvation”…

St. John Chrysostom “For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon earth?”

Peace be with you;)
And also with you.

Dear friend,
I am moved to thank you for the effort and care you have put into these posts. I have said before and now again that I admire and respect your faith greatly.
One thing I think that you, and I, and all of our Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, and any others who wish to claim it, siblings ought to give thanks to God for is that we can read the words of these great Fathers of the Church, and find equally joy and agreement in what they have said. Agreement in one of the fundamental teachings of the faith, that of His real presence in the Eucharist.

Marybeloved made this comment a bit earlier: * I have to say, that of all the controversies between Catholics and Orthodox (and Lutherans and I guess, Anglo-Catholics) I find this to be the silliest, most pointless “controversy” of them all. Really, if anything could ever demonstrate the human ability to manufacture “disputes” out of thin air, this one here takes the cake. *
And I agree with this.

May the blessings of the Christ Child fill you life with joy,

Jon
 
I’ve always taken Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky as a good source of teaching and he says the contrary in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

“In the Mystery of the Eucharist, at the time when the priest, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the offered Gifts, blesses them with the prayer to God the Father: “Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit” — the bread and wine actually are changed into the Body and Blood by the coming down of the Holy Spirit. After this moment, although our eyes see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisibly for sensual eyes, this is the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the “forms” of bread and wine.”

Here are some Fathers that support Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-II

The EO Synod of Jerusalem (1672), Decree 17:

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.
…]
Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top