Transubstantiation "vs" Real Presence

[TOmNossor]

Hello TOm, 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.
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

I think I understood this. Thanks! (and I am sorry I didn’t understand you Mickey).
I truly believe that one can demonstrate problems within Catholicism as it pursued either/or thinking much farther than EOs ever did.
I also, being a human (and an engineer to make things worse), rely on either/or thinking extensively so the EO position concerns me too.
Of course I am a thorough going heretic on issues EOs and Catholic agree on completely so what do I know.
Charity, TOm

 

[Mickey]

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!

Yes. I understand that.

 

[Mickey]

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.

The Trinity is all throughout Scripture from the hospitality of Abraham–to the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan–to the Transfiguration. The councils countered many heresies when the Church was undivided and the Orthodox adhere to the first seven Ecumenical councils. But I see nothing in Sacred Scripture that details the scientific, legalistic, scholastic definition of the word “transubstantiation”. Jesus Christ said “This is My Body—This is My Blood”. We take Him at His word and do not concern ourselves with how it happens.

But I am aware that the Roman Catholic Church felt compelled to define many things against the attacks that came from the reformation.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

Of course I am a thorough going heretic on issues EOs and Catholic agree on completely so what do I know.

 

[AquinasT]

The Trinity is all throughout Scripture from the hospitality of Abraham–to the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan–to the Transfiguration. The councils countered many heresies when the Church was undivided and the Orthodox adhere to the first seven Ecumenical councils. But I see nothing in Sacred Scripture that details the scientific, legalistic, scholastic definition of the word “transubstantiation”. Jesus Christ said “This is My Body—This is My Blood”. We take Him at His word and do not concern ourselves with how it happens.

But I am aware that the Roman Catholic Church felt compelled to define many things against the attacks that came from the reformation.

Peace

Have the Eastern Orthodox then decided to no longer combat heresy? Is that left up to Rome exclusively?

I understand your concern for not wanting to go beyond the limits of human reason and risk “de-mystifying” the mystery. That was very well put, by the way. But It seems that Rome continues to battle error by defining the Faith in terms that avoid misunderstandings, just as the East and West did together previously, in the early Church. Yet now the East (according to you) rejects such definitions and does not confront heresy head on.

I’m sure we will agree to disagree on this forum, but I would rather see the East come back to the table and add her wisdom.

On the issue of the Trinity being throughout Scripture…certainly it is, yet it is not at all clearly stated there as it was in various Church Councils and as it developed in Church doctrine. Same with the Real Presence. John chapter 6 for instance is very clear, yet many walked away from Jesus and they continue to walk away. The Church saw the need to define the Real Presence in precise terms.

Thomas

 

[Mickey]

Have the Eastern Orthodox then decided to no longer combat heresy? Is that left up to Rome exclusively?

When it comes, it will be dealt with. The gates of hell will not prevail.

I understand your concern for not wanting to go beyond the limits of human reason and risk “de-mystifying” the mystery. That was very well put, by the way.

Thank you. God bless you.

But It seems that Rome continues to battle error by defining the Faith in terms that avoid misunderstandings, just as the East and West did together previously, in the early Church. Yet now the East (according to you) rejects such definitions and does not confront heresy head on.

I find that when Rome attempts to meticulously define mysteries, she puts Herself in an even more defensive position. Now she must defend the definition that was created. The new definitions are not needed.

Furthermore, you keep putting forth this false accusation that the Holy Orthodox Church does not and cannot confront heresy. Can you give examples?

On the issue of the Trinity being throughout Scripture…certainly it is, yet it is not at all clearly stated there as it was in various Church Councils and as it developed in Church doctrine.

There were some monstrous heresies in those days. If another faith threatenening heresy arose against Holy Orthodoxy, I suppose they would have to call another council.

Same with the Real Presence. John chapter 6 for instance is very clear, yet many walked away from Jesus and they continue to walk away. The Church saw the need to define the Real Presence in precise terms.

Again, the reformers attacked the West in many areas. Rome felt compelled to define and defend–though I feel they would have been better off to embrace the Mystery and simply say: “We believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Period”!

 

[O.S.Luke]

Aquinas:

Equating Homoousios and Transubstantiation are not anywhere close to the same thing, philosophically or doctrinally. If I’m not mistaken, in Catholicism, transubstantiation is dogma.

I think you could equate Real Presence and Homoousios, though. Both declare mysteries. Transubstantiation tries to go one step further to explain the mystery.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Again, the reformers attacked the West in many areas. Rome felt compelled to define and defend–though I feel they would have been better off to embrace the Mystery and simply say: “We believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Period”!

Transubstantiation was an 11th century dogma.

But I agree… It’s the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Period. No explanation needed or warranted.

 

[JonNC]

Would any of us who believe in the real presence be offended by this statement? “I couldn’t care less about the bread and wine, it is the body and blood of Christ I am interested in”.
Believe what you want about the bread and wine - Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican - but believe that present in the Eucharist is the true, real, body and blood of our Lord and savior Jeses Christ.

 

[JARVET]

This brother in Christ remembers you all in prayer as a whole, praying for the whole body of Christ…

With Love in Christ,

God Bless you all!

Mike Moore

 

[AquinasT]

I would have to disagree that transubstantiation and homoousion are radically different in their approach to a theological controversy. Both adopt philosophical language to precisely define biblical doctrine. They do describe different phenomena and so might seem different on the surface, but in a way they are intimately linked in the type of controversy they settle…

According to the doctrine of the Incarnation Christ is both fully human and fully God (homoousios with the Father). Both humanity and divinity are present in one person. The Church felt that that mystery needed clarification because it toched on other areas of doctrine. Simply put, homoousios helps to answer whether Christ can be two things at once. In a similar way, the question arises whether the Eucharist can be two things at once - fully bread and fully Christ. The Church felt it necessary to further define the Real Presence just as she did the divinity of Christ. In the case of the Incarnation the Church answered YES, there are two realities in one; in the case of the Eucharist the Church said NO, one reality ceases and the other takes its place.

The fact that there are two different conclusions does not mean that the one is less valid than the other. Mysteries are certainly beyond any definite encapsulation into human words. And the Church does not mean in defining either of these terms that we can explain the Mystery. It simply guards against serious errors.

I realize that the Orthodox have been insulated against the errors of the Reformation for many reasons, and because of this have never seen the need to clarify this doctrine. And in fact, there is talk among Catholic theologians that perhaps the terminology could be updated without harming the end conclusion. The words themselves are not as important as the Reality. In that way I agree with your statement that, I don’t care about the bread and the wine, I only care about the Presence of Christ that is there.

Obviously it is beyond my capacity to discuss what would happen in any ecumenical dialog between our Churches on this or any issue, but with further dialog I think we would find more agreement than disagreement.

In great love and respect,
Thomas

 

[Hesychios]

Transubstantiation was an 11th century dogma.

But I agree… It’s the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Period. No explanation needed or warranted.

Oddly, many of the defining characteristics of Roman Catholicism date from the 11th century and afterward.

Perhaps it is not so odd, after all …

 

[AquinasT]

It is odd that Catholic theology from the Eleventh Century onward remained vibrant and continued to develop and grew in its richness, while Orthodoxy seemed to stagnate…

 

[Mickey]

It is odd that Catholic theology from the Eleventh Century onward remained vibrant and continued to develop and grew in its richness, while Orthodoxy seemed to stagnate.

There is the dilemma in a nutshell!
A diametric opposition!

You say that the Latin Church remains vibrant and grows while Orthodoxy goes stagnant.

Orthodoxy says that Her vibrancy is in Her Tradition which was revealed in all spledor and glory from the time of Christ through the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Orthodoxy views the Latin definitions, expressions, and developments as innovations and errors which were fed to Her (in large part) by the ultramontanists after the Church went into schism.

 

[AquinasT]

You mean this forum is unable to solve 1000 years of theological gridlock? :doh2: I’m in shock!

I guess I see the first 1000 years of Christianity as ripe with doctrinal development, and so I see no reason why that pattern should not continue. If things like Christ’s divinity and the definition of the Trinity and the role of the episcopate were gradual developments in those early years, why not transubstantiation, the further delineation of the papacy, and the precise definition of Infallibility in the latter 1000 years. It’s not as though development came to a screeching halt in the Eleventh Century and the Roman Church didn’t get the memo. Your position assumes that these developments are impossible but I do not understand the premise for that assumption given the history of doctrinal developments. I understand your arguments (and they make sense from your perspective) but it all depends on whose Church has the authority to make such claims of orthodoxy (the name “Orthodox” alone does not guarantee the fact of orthodoxy).

I believe that Peter’s See holds the primacy, and thus has a key role in settling these doctrinal disputes. And Rome does not make this argument alone. When the Orthodox spit from Rome it is not as though Rome was all by itself on one side with ALL other bishops walking away. It is not as though Rome asserted itself and EVERYONE rejected her for “orthodoxy.” That is the way the Orthodox seem to paint the picture - Rome decided to go it alone. The fact is there are thousands of bishops the world over that do not see Rome as a stifling control on their episcopacy as the Orthodox see it, but rather as the very guarantor of orthodoxy. Rome continued to go out into the world and battle heresy and encounter new forms of thought. The Orthodox can appear stagnate (from our perspective). (I apologize for that last statement, because I do find a richness and ancient beauty in the Orthodox as well.)

If the Orthodox admit a certain “primacy” of Rome, then it is up to the Orthodox to explain how they can walk away from Rome when other bishops embrace the definition of her primacy that has been defended by Catholics. If the Orthodox want the primacy defined “their” way then isn’t that a primacy OVER Rome and not a primacy OF Rome.

I respect you, and I feel that the Orthodox are our closest brothers and sisters in Christ, but I do not understand nor agree with your position on primacy. And really our arguments about transubstantiation and other doctrines hinge on whose argument bears the weight of ecclesiastic authority…in other words, who holds the keys: Rome and those in communion with her or individual bishops over and against Rome.

Thomas

 

[Mickey]

I guess I see the first 1000 years of Christianity as ripe with doctrinal development, and so I see no reason why that pattern should not continue.

With one of the five Patriarchates doing all of the development on their own? It does not make sense!

If things like Christ’s divinity and the definition of the Trinity and the role of the episcopate were gradual developments in those early years, why not transubstantiation, the further delineation of the papacy, and the precise definition of Infallibility in the latter 1000 years.

Because the entire Church decided these things in Holy Councils to battle heresy.

Your position assumes that these developments are impossible but I do not understand the premise for that assumption given the history of doctrinal developments…

Holy Councils would unite and come to consensus on Church doctrine.

Fast forward about 1000 years --well after the schism–suddenly the ultramontanists declare that the Pope** is** the council, he is infallible and supreme.

The Church never knew this.

There can be no more councils in the Latin Church–the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope has renedered them void.

I understand your arguments (and they make sense from your perspective) but it all depends on whose Church has the authority to make such claims of orthodoxy (the name “Orthodox” alone does not guarantee the fact of orthodoxy).

We all must open our hearts to the truth. I was born Roman Catholic and I was Eastern Catholic for a time. I will always cherish the Catholic Church for Her care and love.

Holy Orthodoxy speaks the fulness of truth to my heart.

I believe that Peter’s See holds the primacy

The Church has always believed in the primacy of honor.

The fact is there are thousands of bishops the world over that do not see Rome as a stifling control on their episcopacy as the Orthodox see it, but rather as the very guarantor of orthodoxy.

Then the odd doctrine of supremacy/infallibility was completely unnecessary.

If the Orthodox admit a certain “primacy” of Rome, then it is up to the Orthodox to explain how they can walk away from Rome when other bishops embrace the definition of her primacy that has been defended by Catholics.

Primacy does not mean the same thing as supremacy.

If the Orthodox want the primacy defined “their” way then isn’t that a primacy OVER Rome and not a primacy OF Rome.

If you were to take the way back machine to a time before the great schism, you would not see this idea of a supreme infallible pontiff. It did not exist!

I respect you, and I feel that the Orthodox are our closest brothers and sisters in Christ, but I do not understand nor agree with your position on primacy.

I respect you also, and as I said, I will always love the Catholic Church. But I cannot understand or agree with your position on supremacy. As my study became deeper in Church history, I found that today’s Orthodox Church most closely resembled the New Testament Church of Sacred Scripture and the Church of the Sacred Tradition of our Church Fathers.

And really our arguments about transubstantiation and other doctrines hinge on whose argument bears the weight of ecclesiastic authority…in other words, who holds the keys: Rome and those in communion with her or individual bishops over and against Rome.

All the Apostles received the keys. If not, your Church/Pope would not declare that we have valid Apostolic Succession, sacraments, and grace. The real issue with definitions such as “transubstantiation” is much simpler. It comes down to this:

Do I need an ultra-fancy word that describes the awesome and glorious mystery of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Nah.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Oddly, many of the defining characteristics of Roman Catholicism date from the 11th century and afterward.

Perhaps it is not so odd, after all …

Of course not… Scholasticism got on the scene about that time.

 

[Hesychios]

It is odd that Catholic theology from the Eleventh Century onward remained vibrant and continued to develop and grew in its richness, while Orthodoxy seemed to stagnate…

It is odd that Catholic theology from the Eleventh Century onward started to change and develop and grew in its peculiarities, while Orthodoxy remained Faithful to the Received Apostolic teaching…

Not so odd, since after leaving Holy Orthodoxy the Roman church lost it’s moderating influences, and continues to morph to this day.