Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont; to Cavardossi

Before I get to the official definition of the substance and accidents; I wish to clarify my understanding of which you imply that the accidents of bread and wine are always remaining as bread and wine. This cannot be because now you have bread and wine co-existing with the body of Christ. But you reveal that is not your position of transubstantiation? Ok, then if your position does not reveal consubstantiation, then it reveals Tran signification. Because, now you have the bread and wine remaining in the accidents to represent the body of Christ, because you make the false claim that they are accidents of bread and wine. Only you can clear this misunderstanding of transubstantiation defined by the Catholic Church. So far what you reveal by substance change and accidents remaining are not Catholic teaching.

Here is Catholic Teaching relating to the substance and accidents of transubstantiation.

First of all please allow me to define the difference between transformation and transubstantiation;

Not a Catholic teaching, Transformation = the substance of something stays the same but its appearance changes.

Catholic teaching, Transubstantiation = the appearance of the bread and wine stays the same but their substance is changed.

Now my Catholic position; One would be a fool to believe that he/she does not see or taste bread and wine in the Eucharist, because it is by divine power these exist truly to our sense and tastes. And as Cardinal Rat zinger puts it “, “even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different”.
Or as the Church puts it clearly “Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ” CCC 1374.

The Church further concludes that no illusion exists from this Tran substantial change because this change “does not exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be real too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present”. “Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantial contained. This presence is called “real” CCC 1374.

In summary Christ is whole fully present in every small piece of crumb or drop of the Eucharist. This divine reality allows our physical bodies to enter into the mysteries of God by His divine miracle in the physical “appearance” of bread and wine to be consumed, so that God can consume us in communion with His divinity. For no one approaches God without the real presence of the body of Christ Jesus.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8754141]Firstly, it’s ousia, not ousis, and it’s metousiosis, not meta-ousis; secondly, ousia is precisely what the Latins translated as substance. To Aristotle, ousia was not a person or the “outer substance” of something, it was simply a thing in itself, a property bearer in which accidents would inhere. It is the feminine present participle of the Greek verb einai (to be), which appropriately shows its relation to the being of an object, in that the ousia of something reflects for lack of a better term what it truly is. Metousiosis in the context of the Eucharist means transubstantiation, as it is simply a translation of the scholastic term transubstantiation into Greek

I assure you your conflict is not with me, you are disputing a doctor of theology and Master of Philosophy for over 43 years John A. Hardon, S.J. Here is his quote from page 439 "With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; The Latin tradition coined the word transubstantio, “change of substance”…

I leave your definition in question in regards to Meta, Meto, ousia, ousis. Because the spelling the Dr. used was meta-ousiosis not metaousis. But I may have misled you from an incorrect spelling of meta-ousiosis.

Do you have anything to add to meta-ousiosis?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Of all the supposed differences that separate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, this one is least compelling. There is no difference in our doctrine of the eucharist, merely different ways of describing the same mystery.

I agree with you. But what does one do when one is falesly interpreting your faith to mean something other than what you believe? Is not reasonable to clarify these false assumptions so that they stop the poison from spreading?

That’s the problem the Catholic Church has remained idle in defending her faith publicly that so much poison of misrepresentation and falsehoods of her teachings have led many astray.

It is time to clear up these false accusations of the Revelations of Jesus Christ taught by the Catholic Church. Remember that is why this non-catholic forum is here to assist in our misunderstandings.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Just a note, this is too academic and explanatory for me. . . :tsktsk:

You are probably correct. Jesus is truly and whole present, body, blood, soul and divinity in His Eucharist which consists of “accidents” of bread and wine visible and present to our senses and tastes, but is truly the real bodily presence of Jesus Christ.

How do the accidents remain? by transubstantiation.

How did this change occur so that the accidents of bread and wine “appear” to remain to our flesh and the whole substance of bread and wine have changed into the body of Jesus Christ? By the Word of God and the Holy Spirit this has been done.

How do you know the bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body of Jesus Christ? “Catholic faith in the Word of God” confirmed that a change occurred by transubstantiation because the Word of God reveals John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”.

Just because our flesh sees and tastes bread and wine in the Eucharist the flesh is of no avail here, because it is the Spirit that gives them life to become the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Sometimes discussions between Catholics and Orthodox can take on a different level of terminology and understandings that may appear foreign to the average Christian who is not a practicing Catholic or practicing Orthodox.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

**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;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are probably correct. Jesus is truly and whole present, body, blood, soul and divinity in His Eucharist which consists of “accidents” of bread and wine visible and present to our senses and tastes, but is truly the real bodily presence of Jesus Christ.

How do the accidents remain? by transubstantiation.

How did this change occur so that the accidents of bread and wine “appear” to remain to our flesh and the whole substance of bread and wine have changed into the body of Jesus Christ? By the Word of God and the Holy Spirit this has been done.

How do you know the bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body of Jesus Christ? **“Catholic faith in the Word of God” confirmed that a change occurred by transubstantiation because the Word of God reveals John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”. **

Just because our flesh sees and tastes bread and wine in the Eucharist the flesh is of no avail here, because it is the Spirit that gives them life to become the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ./B]

Sometimes discussions between Catholics and Orthodox can take on a different level of terminology and understandings that may appear foreign to the average Christian who is not a practicing Catholic or practicing Orthodox.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are probably correct. Jesus is truly and whole present, body, blood, soul and divinity in His Eucharist which consists of “accidents” of bread and wine visible and present to our senses and tastes, but is truly the real bodily presence of Jesus Christ.

How do the accidents remain? by transubstantiation.

How did this change occur so that the accidents of bread and wine “appear” to remain to our flesh and the whole substance of bread and wine have changed into the body of Jesus Christ? By the Word of God and the Holy Spirit this has been done.

How do you know the bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body of Jesus Christ? “Catholic faith in the Word of God” confirmed that a change occurred by transubstantiation because the Word of God reveals John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”.

Just because our flesh sees and tastes bread and wine in the Eucharist the flesh is of no avail here, because it is the Spirit that gives them life to become the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

**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;
Sometimes discussions between Catholics and Orthodox can take on a different level of terminology and understandings that may appear foreign to the average Christian who is not a practicing Catholic or practicing Orthodox.

 

[Wesley7]

Do you have anything to add to meta-ousiosis?

on the subjekt of metaphysics there is metasis which mean something significant in the relation to the eucarist.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

on the subjekt of metaphysics there is metasis which mean something significant in the relation to the eucarist.

Now who’s getting too academic here?

Interesting, Can you define how you relate metaphysics by metasis to the Eucharist?

 

[Elijahmaria]

You are probably correct. Jesus is truly and whole present, body, blood, soul and divinity in His Eucharist which consists of “accidents” of bread and wine visible and present to our senses and tastes, but is truly the real bodily presence of Jesus Christ.

How do the accidents remain? by transubstantiation.

How did this change occur so that the accidents of bread and wine “appear” to remain to our flesh and the whole substance of bread and wine have changed into the body of Jesus Christ? By the Word of God and the Holy Spirit this has been done.

How do you know the bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body of Jesus Christ? “Catholic faith in the Word of God” confirmed that a change occurred by transubstantiation because the Word of God reveals John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”.

Just because our flesh sees and tastes bread and wine in the Eucharist the flesh is of no avail here, because it is the Spirit that gives them life to become the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Sometimes discussions between Catholics and Orthodox can take on a different level of terminology and understandings that may appear foreign to the average Christian who is not a practicing Catholic or practicing Orthodox.

The Eucharist does NOT “consist of accidents”!!!

Find some other way of saying it.

Very imprecise and makes you sound…bombastic and without substance…might be an accident…I don’t know…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Eucharist does NOT “consist of accidents”!!!

Find some other way of saying it.

Very imprecise and makes you sound…bombastic and without substance…might be an accident…I don’t know…

My comment follows the topic of discussion of Transubstantiation, if you are not following the thought of previous posts, you are self interjecting the subject matter out of context, “by accident”?.

My comment alone without any previous comments to the subject, I would of wrote the following…"in His Eucharist (from transubstantiation) which consists of “accidents” (in the appearance) of bread and wine visible and present to our senses and tastes, but is truly the real bodily presence of Jesus Christ. Without running the risk of unnecessarily repeating myself.

It may surprise some here; that the Church by canon law states that the celebrant does not need to intend what the Church intends by transubstantiation. In other words “is not necessary for the priest to have specific intention that transubstantiation take place, so long as he has the general intention to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist”.

I pray that these posts opens an awareness to those who oppose transubstantiation defined by the Church in the Eucharist. Will Find their opposing views against transubstantiation to be something other and foreign to what the Catholic faith reveals and or teaches from transubstantiation.

1. Transubstantiation in the Eucharist is never a philisophical concept pertaining to the change from the power of nature. Transubstantiation defined by the Catholic Church is caused by the power of the divine.
2. Transubstantiation in the Eucharist never defines a mystery nor attempts to reveal a mystery only that a change has taken place in the substance of bread and wine, leaving the “appearance” of bread and wine to our senses which are truly real and existing are truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
3. Those who don’t hold to transubstantiation need not oppose transubstantiation either.

Peace be with you

 

[Elijahmaria]

My comment follows the topic of discussion of Transubstantiation, if you are not following the thought of previous posts, you are self interjecting the subject matter out of context, “by accident”?.

My comment alone without any previous comments to the subject,** I would of wrote the following…**"in His Eucharist (from transubstantiation) which consists of “accidents” (in the appearance) of bread and wine visible and present to our senses and tastes, but is truly the real bodily presence of Jesus Christ. Without running the risk of unnecessarily repeating myself.

“Would of wrote…” is very poor English construction. Accurately it is “would have written”…

And that is the nature of my criticism of your EXPLANATIONS of transubstantiation. You do it badly.

It is admirable that you believe that transubstantiation is a truth of the faith. I also believe that.

But before you continue confusing people, I suggest that you find yourself a good English grammar book and someone to give you a formula for explaining transubstantiation to others without introducing your own personal errors into the explanation by poor word choice.

Mary

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Charity in our posts please

 

[FrKimel]

This has been an interesting thread to read. The one thing I immediately noticed is that everyone is talking about transubstantiation without referencing the dogma of transubstantiation as presented by the Council of Trent. It is not unimportant, for example, that Trent did not employ the philosophical term accidentia, as one might have expected them to do, but rather species (appearance). This might suggest, and many contemporary Catholic theologians agree, that the Tridentine fathers did not intend to impose an Aristotelian metaphysic.

As already observed, Orthodox theologians today avoid the language of transubstantiation. Some emphatically reject it. If you want to know how they generally speak of the eucharistic transmutation, take a look at the Lutheran/Orthodox agreement on the Eucharist:

Lutherans and Orthodox take the Lord’s words “this is my body; this is my blood” (Mt 26,27f, par.) literally. They believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood to be consumed by the communicants. How this happens is regarded by both as a profound and real mystery. …

Orthodox profess a real change (metabole) of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ by the Words of Institution and the act of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic anaphora. This does not mean a “transsubstantiation” of the substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the deified humanity of Christ, but a union with it: “The bread of communion isn’t an ordinary bread, but united with divinity” (John of Damascus). This union amounts to a communication of the deifying properties of the humanity of Christ and of the deifying grace of his divinity to the eucharistic gifts: The bread and the wine are no longer understood with respect to their natural properties but with respect to Christ’s deified human body in which they have been assumed through the action of the Holy Spirit. As in Christology the two natures are united hypostatically, so in the Eucharist Christ’s exalted human body and the “antitypes” (St. Basil, Anaphora) of bread and wine are united sacramentally through the act of the Holy Spirit. …

Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans. …

Orthodox understand the elements’ change christologically. Since Christ’s presence with the elements brings the divine into contact with the earthly, the earthly elements are affected—“deified”—much as Christ’s human nature is affected by union with the divine. As a consequence, Orthodox believe that the elements are sacramentally changed in themselves when they are united with Christ’s body and blood, and that that change is as irreversible as the incarnation itself. However, they insist that the consecrated bread and wine are used only for eucharistic purposes.

When I first read this statement I wondered “What specific formulation of transubstantiation did they they were objecting?” Unfortunately, the statement does not tell us.

Is this way of speaking of the eucharistic transmutation acceptable to Catholic theology? That is an interesting question. But before you say no, take a look at these two Catholic presentations of transubstantiation:

Eucharistic Change

Transubstantiation and Eucharistic Presence

 

[adoglover1956]

Mileage varies

In the main it is appreciated. I only know one Internet contributor in Orthodoxy who would slam it back on us and declare that we are not but they are.

The main impetus for me is that we are called to recognize Orthodoxy as something far closer to us in more ways than any other group of separated brethren.

Sure you’ll get dozens of shadings of a multiplicity of primary perspectives: but the fact remains our Orthodox Catholic brothers and sisters do not number among the non-Catholic, and are not treated that way by our Holy Father, nor were they treated that way by Blessed John Paul II. So how can we do less?

:thumbsup:

If this would only become the dominate way of thinking!

 

[FrKimel]

Philosopher Anthony Kenny’s interpretation of Trent may be of interest to this discussion:

‘To an Aristotelian, the natural meaning of the decree of Trent which states that the substance of bread and wine turns into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, is not that some part of the bread and wine turns into some part of the body and blood, but simply that the bread and wine turns into the body and blood. Following Aquinas (in 1 Cor 11:24), the Fathers of Trent used “the substance of Christ’s body” and “Christ’s body” as interchangeable terms. According to scholastic theory, substance is not an imperceptible part of a particular individual. It is not a part of an individual; it is that individual.’ (“The Use of Logical Analysis in Theology,” in Theology and the University [1964], p. 232)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Philosopher Anthony Kenny’s interpretation of Trent may be of interest to this discussion:

‘To an Aristotelian, the natural meaning of the decree of Trent which states that the substance of bread and wine turns into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, is not that some part of the bread and wine turns into some part of the body and blood, but simply that the bread and wine turns into the body and blood. Following Aquinas (in 1 Cor 11:24), the Fathers of Trent used “the substance of Christ’s body” and “Christ’s body” as interchangeable terms. According to scholastic theory, substance is not an imperceptible part of a particular individual. It is not a part of an individual; it is that individual.’ (“The Use of Logical Analysis in Theology,” in Theology and the University [1964], p. 232)

I find a conflict of interest between Orthodox and Lutheran theology of sacraments. How these two can qualify as both being in agreement as to the same when Lutherans sacraments are invalid and Orthodox are valid sacraments.

This concept of valid and invalid sacraments discounts the Lutheran/Orthodox position. What need to discuss further, when validity discounts the invalidity of the Eucharist. It is the Spiritual reality (valid sacramentally) which out ranks and removes (invalidity) winds and doctrines of men.

You are the first poster to invent the term “scholastic theory”? Please confirm what a scholastic theory is as compared to the Eucharist?

Theology, by anyone university or theological opinions do not dictate nor can it discount what is believed by the faithful these past 2000 years in the true presence of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

This thread has dealt with the faithful who believe in what the Church has always believed in the Eucharist true body and blood presence.

Your commentary has only replaced Transubstantiation with a vast number of terms and definitions that do not contradict with what has transubstantiated from bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

What is the purpose to compete with theology and terms to define what is already believed “A Change of substance has taken place” either by Transubstantiation, or by the many vast terms, theology and definitions that try and get your interpretation to arrive at what Transubstantiation simply arrives at " A change has occurred".

Transmutation is never a Catholic teaching in the Eucharist. The definition is Transubstantiation.

Transmutation has been used by Orthodox opinion and Catholic opinion in commentary but never by a Catholic to define the Change, which is Transubstantiation.

My position here has mainly been “Faith” not philosophical ideologies or theories which you introduced. Philosophy again does not dictate faith in the Eucharist.
Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;9006897]I find a conflict of interest between Orthodox and Lutheran theology of sacraments. How these two can qualify as both being in agreement as to the same when Lutherans sacraments are invalid and Orthodox are valid sacraments.

The same way, my friend Gabe, that Catholics and Lutherans have come to levels of agreement regarding the Sacrament.

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”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

This concept of valid and invalid sacraments discounts the Lutheran/Orthodox position. What need to discuss further, when validity discounts the invalidity of the Eucharist. It is the Spiritual reality (valid sacramentally) which out ranks and removes (invalidity) winds and doctrines of men.

And some Orthodox question the validity of Catholic orders and sacraments. Why would this invalidate discussion and agreement on ever-growing levels? ISTM that these agreements, as they are not compromise, shoould be received with thanksgiving.

Jon

 

[Cavaradossi]

I just wanted to point out that in most cases, these joint declarations have not been signed or ratified by a synod. This is true for example of the Ravenna talks. They do not have any official approval in the Orthodox Church, so they really can only be regarded as opinions.

 

[JonNC]

I just wanted to point out that in most cases, these joint declarations have not been signed or ratified by a synod. This is true for example of the Ravenna talks. They do not have any official approval in the Orthodox Church, so they really can only be regarded as opinions.

True, same for the one I cited. But they are evidence of, I believe, a movement of the Spirit to bring His Church Militant closer to unity.

Jon