Transubstantiation "vs" Real Presence

[AquinasT]

When the divinity of Christ was being debated in the first few centuries of Christianity, the competing terms homoousios and homoiousios differed only by the Greek letter iota, (from which comes our expression “…not one iota’s difference”), but the Fathers deemed the philosophical difference in the meaning of these words to be great enough to warrant heated debate and finally settled on homoousios for inclusion in the Creed. How many average Christians could today speak intelligently about the implications of these philosophical terms? Probably few.

But just because the average Christian is not well instructed in philosophy or classical logic or complex theological issues does not mean we should abandon the Creed or dumb down our terminology or stop inquiring into divine Mysteries. The term transubstantiation offers a valuable insight into our understanding of what happens in the Mass. If people do not understand the term then they should see that as a reason to study their faith more diligently. Meanwhile it should be noted that it is not necessary to have this great working knowledge of the vocabulary to have a deep faith in the Real Presence. There is something to be said for a simple faith. Still, the doctrine is there for those who wish to explore it.
Thomas

 

[Mickey]

I have never really understood the Eastern Orthodox objection to transubstantiation. The doctrine really teaches nothing more than the fact that the Stuff becomes Jesus while the appearance and behavior remain that of bread and wine.

Stuff?

I think Eastern Objections are nothing more than polemics for the sake of polemics.

Nah. We simply are not fond of attempting to define the undefinable.

 

[JimG]

It was not necessary. Trying to explain transubstantiation to someone usually confuses them.

It is the Real Presence. It is a great mystery. A scholastic definition diminishes this great mystery!

A nun teaching an RCIA class about the Trinity (and doing a great job of it) commented that it is nearly impossible to discuss the Trinity at great length without falling into heresy.

But that’s merely because precision is required in the terms and concepts used.

We might of course decide simply not to discuss the Trinity or transubstantiation. But invariably, somebody would discuss it, perhaps somebody with a big following. And they would likely get it wrong in some manner. At that point, it’s the Church’s responsibility to jump in and say "wait a minute–that’s not quite right. If we’re going to discuss it, we’ve to say the one thing that we really believe in contradistinction to the hundreds of ways of getting it wrong.

 

[manualman]

You see. It took you four paragraphs in an attempt to explain it.
It is much better to say:
The Real Presence is a glorious, holy, and awesome Mystery!

Perhaps, but such a sentiment is perilously close to the muslim sentiment that the will of God is inscrutable and that human reason must not attempt to aprehend any part of it other than to simply follow the example of the scriptures and prophet. We think it IS worthwhile to ponder and to discern between inferences from revelation that are true versus those that are demonstrably NOT true. IMO, that is the pattern of christianity from the get-go.

 

[Mickey]

Perhaps, but such a sentiment is perilously close to the muslim sentiment that the will of God is inscrutable and that human reason must not attempt to aprehend any part of it other than to simply follow the example of the scriptures and prophet.

Are you saying that refusing to define concepts such transubstantiation are analogous to mohamedism?!?

 

[manualman]

Of course not. But to DENOUNCE those who seek to reflect upon and learn the implications and inferences of revelation is to make a similar error. That is rather different than saying that all are OBLIGATED to do so.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Perhaps, but such a sentiment is perilously close to the muslim sentiment that the will of God is inscrutable and that human reason must not attempt to aprehend any part of it other than to simply follow the example of the scriptures and prophet. We think it IS worthwhile to ponder and to discern between inferences from revelation that are true versus those that are demonstrably NOT true. IMO, that is the pattern of christianity from the get-go.

I don’t think human reason must not make the attempts… reason simply fails us when discussing a supernatural mystery. That’s why philosophy is a poor discipline to use when talking about a mystery - to attempt to explain the mystery is to attempt to de-mystify the mystery,

 

[Mickey]

I don’t think human reason must not make the attempts… reason simply fails us when discussing a supernatural mystery. That’s why philosophy is a poor discipline to use when talking about a mystery - to attempt to explain the mystery is to attempt to de-mystify the mystery,

Very eloquently stated. This is also how I feel.

 

[Hesychios]

I have never really understood the Eastern Orthodox objection to transubstantiation.

Probably because those who trumpet the idea seem to say: “well, we have reasoned it all out for you, so just take our word for it”.

We won’t, not because we know you are wrong, but because we know whatever explanation you attempt will always be inadequate as well as unnecessary. That means anything you can say on the subject will be like nothing but a halfway measure of no use.

Yet you do not see that.

The doctrine really teaches nothing more than the fact that the Stuff becomes Jesus while the appearance and behavior remain that of bread and wine. Is this not what the Eastern Orthodox believe?

We believe in a paradox. You cannot accept a paradox.

To you it is either/or…we just don’t know and we have no need to know. We believe in what Jesus told us, no more and no less.

I think Eastern Objections are nothing more than polemics for the sake of polemics. Anti-Catholicism is strong in the East, even amongst Eastern doctrinal forumlations.

I think you are experessing nothing more than polemics for the sake of polemics.

Your Anti-Orthodoxy is expressed even in the simplest, holiest and benign of subjects, like this one. :tsktsk:

Peace and all good things,

 

[manualman]

Michael, you’ve succumbed to making a straw man.

The catholic position is that the Eucharist truly IS the body and blood of Christ even though all sensory investigations indicate otherwise. This is not a paradox? Methinks it is.

What drove the catholic definitions were erroneous ideas about the nature of the Eucharist, mainly folks who decided that it is both bread and Christ. It is not an egomaniacal drive that objects to characterizing bread as divine, however much you might prefer to think that.

I can respect differing interpretations of revelation and even refusal to speculate beyond what was explicitly revealed by the apostles. But I don’t appreciate mischaracterization of catholic teaching or the ascribing of evil motives to the formation of actual catholic teaching. It ain’t productive.

 

[Hesychios]

What drove the catholic definitions were erroneous ideas about the nature of the Eucharist, mainly folks who decided that it is both bread and Christ.

Ok, but (not that I subscibe to this) why not both bread AND Christ?

Did Jesus Christ say to the disciples “This is MY body, and not bread” ?

No, neither did He state “This is MY body, and also bread”.

[Although in fairness, I should mention that He did say He was the Bread of Life, but I would not take that too far in this context.]

Personally, I think all opinions are not necessary, you think one opinion is valid and the other is not, leaving the way open for disputes with others…why even go there? Is this the kind of rationalizing that split the western church wide open?

The western mindset is that “we have to declare a position”, while the eastern mindset is “no, we do not”. What is seemingly important to you may be of little consequence to me.

I would say the faith of a child is blessed indeed.

So I cannot accept your position, any more than I can accept the alternative, you (figuratively you, not personally you) cannot decide for me what this all means, neither do I decide, aside from what we have received I don’t really care…I leave it alone.

Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist, this I know because it is in the word of Christ.

Michael

 

[manualman]

Much better, though obviously I don’t agree.

EO don’t believe that revelation makes it clear that the host is no longer bread. Fair enough. Catholics do. Honest differences of opinion without aspersions.

 

[TOmNossor]

Probably because those who trumpet the idea seem to say: “well, we have reasoned it all out for you, so just take our word for it”.

We won’t, not because we know you are wrong, but because we know whatever explanation you attempt will always be inadequate as well as unnecessary. That means anything you can say on the subject will be like nothing but a halfway measure of no use.

Yet you do not see that. We believe in a paradox. You cannot accept a paradox.

To you it is either/or…we just don’t know and we have no need to know. We believe in what Jesus told us, no more and no less.
I think you are experessing nothing more than polemics for the sake of polemics.

Your Anti-Orthodoxy is expressed even in the simplest, holiest and benign of subjects, like this one.

Peace and all good things,
It is interesting to see that I posted in this thread about 4 years ago. Yea me!

Ok, in my post I said that EO’s can in fact embrace the term Transubstantiation. It is my understanding that this is true. Are you suggesting that you do not consider a person who claims to be an Easter Orthodox Christian AND who claims to believe in Transubstantiation to be your EO brother?

About 2-3 months ago I looked into the rejection of dialectic reasoning within EO church. I asked at the time how prevalent this was in EO thought.

Would you say that the rejection of “either/or” thinking is a necessary part of being a faithful Eastern Orthodox?

Charity, TOm

 

[Mickey]

Ok, in my post I said that EO’s can in fact embrace the term Transubstantiation. It is my understanding that this is true. Are you suggesting that you do not consider a person who claims to be an Easter Orthodox Christian AND who claims to believe in Transubstantiation to be your EO brother?

The Holy Orthodox Church is not concerned with the definition of transubstantiation. It is a non-issue. We do not know such a word. I know this is difficult for many people to grasp. We accept it as a mystery–that is all. The Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Real Presence. The True Presence. Do you understand? We do not need the word transubstantiation. It is meaningless to us. It is not an either/or situation.

It is a glorious Mystery!

 

[TOmNossor]

The Holy Orthodox Church is not concerned with the definition of transubstantiation. It is a non-issue. We do not know such a word. I know this is difficult for many people to grasp. We accept it as a mystery–that is all. The Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Real Presence. The True Presence. Do you understand? We do not need the word transubstantiation. It is meaningless to us. It is not an either/or situation.

It is a glorious Mystery!

Thank you for your response. If I took you to be ABSOLUTELY answering my question I would need to infer that you said,
“If a person says they believe in Transubstantiation, they are not an Easter Orthodox Christian. Such a statement has no place in EO Christianity.”

This of course is contrary to my previous study of this matter.

I am however seeing a much larger number of EO Christians boldly declaring that EO’s reject either/or thinking period.
Would you say that either/or thinking is anathema to Eastern Orthodoxy?

I have read Maximus and some of the other early father’s who speak against dialectic reasoning. I personally think that the discussions at the first 4 councils (and I suspect the next 3 though I have studied them less) are built upon dialectic reasoning with only a small bow to “via negativa” and non-dialectic trends.

Charity, TOm

 

[Mickey]

Thank you for your response. If I took you to be ABSOLUTELY answering my question I would need to infer that you said,
“If a person says they believe in Transubstantiation, they are not an Easter Orthodox Christian. Such a statement has no place in EO Christianity.”

Sigh.

Sadly, you cannot understand.

Peace be unto you.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello TOm,

It is interesting to see that I posted in this thread about 4 years ago. Yea me!

Ok, in my post I said that EO’s can in fact embrace the term Transubstantiation. It is my understanding that this is true. Are you suggesting that you do not consider a person who claims to be an Easter Orthodox Christian AND who claims to believe in Transubstantiation to be your EO brother?

You raise some good points.

I am not rejecting people who innocently use the term, nor a person who innocently uses the term consubstantiation (or whatever other term there may be…I don’t know), it can only be a theologumena. I am rejecting the notion that people think this in any way closes the book on the subject. It’s really best not to go there.

I am not stating that with Orthodoxy “anything goes”, and I am not stating that all are welcome to bring in any old idea and worship with us. In Orthodoxy the Divine is a great mystery, and we must rely primarily upon what has been revealed. Going further is not necessary, and not generally helpful.

If an Orthodox Christian was convinced of transubstantiation as an accurate description of what happens, would I think they are incorrect? No, they might very well be guessing correctly, but that would be their personal way of understanding.

But if they are going to insist that it is the one accurate description of what happens in the Eucharist, I would say they are out of line to make such a claim, perhaps overreaching.

Would you say that the rejection of “either/or” thinking is a necessary part of being a faithful Eastern Orthodox?

I would not think so.

After all…“Is Jesus God, or is he not?” He either is, or He isn’t.

But here we are sticking to revealed Truth, and going no further except when the Fathers gathered in Council to prune back on heresies (being ‘choices’, heresies are not revealed Truth, but mental exercises). As soon as we get into the “it seems to me…” or the “logically then…” ideas which are not divinely revealed, but must be deduced, we are inviting the possibility of error. That does not guarantee that the deduction will be wrong, but it does not guarantee the deduction will be right either.

My position is (others may take a different tack) that if first century Christians did not need to know ‘such-and-such’ of details to achieve salvation, can not be of primary importance.

Michael

 

[EHRAM]

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Who believes this and who disagrees with this, and why do you feel the way that you do?

Presbyterians, and probably other Calvinists, would believe this. Catholics would disagree, because Christ said “This is my body…” rather than “This represents my body…” Also, at the end of the Bread of Life discourse, many of his disciples found this teaching so hard to accept that they left. Jesus did not call after them saying, “I was only speaking metaphorically. The bread’s just a symbol of my flesh. You won’t really eat my flesh or drink my blood.” Instead he asked the remaining disciples if they were going to leave too.

 

[SiempreFiel]

The Holy Orthodox Church is not concerned with the definition of transubstantiation. It is a non-issue. We do not know such a word. I know this is difficult for many people to grasp. We accept it as a mystery–that is all. The Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Real Presence. The True Presence. Do you understand? We do not need the word transubstantiation. It is meaningless to us. It is not an either/or situation.

It is a glorious Mystery!

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox are not concerned with the definition of transubstantiation. I’m 100% OK with that! But the Eastern Orthodox should understand that in the west the definition of transubstantiation was necessary because of the attacks against the Faith of the Church! Please don’t attack the Catholic Church for defending the Faith of our Fathers!

Mysterium Fidei

 

[AquinasT]

When the early Church faced the question of Jesus’ divinity they settled on the term “homoousios” to describe Jesus as “one in Being with” the Father, sharing His divine nature. This philosophical term clarifies any misunderstanding about the precise nature of the person Jesus. In a similar way there are errors that can arise in our understanding of the Eucharist. Just as we might ask “Is Jesus both man and God; or is He only God or only man,” we might also ask, “Is the Eucharist both bread and Body; or is it only Body or only bread.” The term transubstantiation defines this mystery in the same way the homoousios defined the mystery of Christ’s nature.

Why is it that the Orthodox can accept a clear definition in one case and not the other? You cannot argue that philosophy is not suited to this purpose since the Orthodox accept the definition of Christ’s divine nature in philosophical terms. You cannot argue that mysteries ought not be defined since Christ’s divinity was clearly defined and it is a mystery. You cannot say that one belief is just as good as the next, since you hold the Creed and its definitions in such high esteem and consider them binding. You cannot argue that we must not go beyond Scripture or divine Revelation since the term homoousios is just as absent from Scripture as is transubstantiation, but both describe a reality we find in Scripture and we hold as revealed by God.

So what REALLY is your objection?

Thomas