Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Consubstantiation v Transubstantiation
Can someone please explain the difference between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation and provide me in a way of explaining and describing Consubstantiation without sounding like/confusing it with Transubstantiation?
Comments
Hi Copticuser:
Very simplistically here are the unorthodox teachings of transubstantiation & consubstantiation:
Transubstantiation - the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The physical bread and wine stop to exist physically and have become a pound of meat and chalice full of actual blood. You know blood with red blood cells and everything.
Consubstantiation: the bread and wine become actual flesh and blood while they continue to exist as bread and wine. i.e. Co - at the same time/together. So, the bread is bread and flesh at the same time and the wine is blood and wine at the same time. Historically, consubstantiation came after transubstantiation.
In Christ
Theophilus
For the first thousand years of Christian history, when the Church was visibly one and undivided, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confessed this was a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood, but one cannot say how they become so.
The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought on the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church in A.D. 1054, was pressed by the rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. The sacrament, which only faith can comprehend, was subjected to a philosophical definition. This second view of the Eucharist was unknown to the ancient Church. Not surprisingly, one of the points of disagreement between Rome and the sixteenth-century reformers was the issue of transubstantiation. Unable to accept this explanation of the sacrament, the radical reformers, who were rationalists themselves, took up the opposite point of view: the gifts are nothing but bread and wine, period. They only represent Christ's Body and Blood; they have no spiritual reality.
Transubstantiation
This term comes from the medieval Latin scholasticism: following the Aristotelian philosophical categories. Underlying reality of the Holy Gifts without changing the “accidents” or appearance of bread and wine.
Orthodox theology, however, does not try to “define” this Mystery in terms of philosophical categories, and thus prefers the simple word
“change”
This belief is affirmed by the fathers in straightforward and unambiguous (unmistakable)terms.
Saint GREGORY OF NYSSA says, "Rightly then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word."
In the words of John of Damascus: "the bread itself and the wine are made over into the Body and Blood of God. If you inquire into the way in which this happens, let it suffice for you to hear that it is through the Holy Spirit. . . . More than this we do not know, except that the word of God is true and effective and all- powerful; but the manner [of the Eucharistic transformation] is inscrutable."
According to wikipedia (not the best source):
Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like Transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation. The adjective consubstantial however describes a different theological concept.
The doctrine of consubstantiation is erroneously identified as the eucharistic doctrine of Martin Luther,[1] who defined his doctrine as the sacramental union.[2] While some Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, others reject the concept because it substitutes what they believe to be the biblical doctrine with a philosophical construct and implies, in their view, a natural, local inclusion of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine of the eucharist.
In Christ
Theophilus
The orthodox church does not employ terms to define this change. It's simply recognized as a mystical change and left at that.
Some fathers have tried to contemplate it but steered away from defining it absolutely. Others, particularly in Roman Catholicism and later Lutherans, have tried to bring down this mystery to a carnal and mechanic understanding which has not profited anyone nor stopped the tug of western pressure to define the mysteries.
Copticuser20,
The orthodox church does not employ terms to define this change. It's simply recognized as a mystical change and left at that.
Some fathers have tried to contemplate it but steered away from defining it absolutely. Others, particularly in Roman Catholicism and later Lutherans, have tried to bring down this mystery to a carnal and mechanic understanding which has not profited anyone nor stopped the tug of western pressure to define the mysteries.
That's what I thought... I asked because I am teaching a Sunday School lesson about the liturgy to 6th graders and I have a feeling someone is going to ask about it. I just didn't know how to explain it.
[quote author=Orthodoxy link=topic=14367.msg164154#msg164154 date=1365628772]
Copticuser20,
The orthodox church does not employ terms to define this change. It's simply recognized as a mystical change and left at that.
Some fathers have tried to contemplate it but steered away from defining it absolutely. Others, particularly in Roman Catholicism and later Lutherans, have tried to bring down this mystery to a carnal and mechanic understanding which has not profited anyone nor stopped the tug of western pressure to define the mysteries.
That's what I thought... I asked because I am teaching a Sunday School lesson about the liturgy to 6th graders and I have a feeling someone is going to ask about it. I just didn't know how to explain it.
I too had some sunday school kids corner me at the beginning of my service years ago and I was pressured to use terms to try and weezle my way out, attempting to sound articulate while simultaneously attempting to answer their queries.
I failed to edify them to say the least. And it opened the floodgates to more questions; eventually I had to shed the facade and understood why the Orthodox fathers, in their lack of reliance on their own discernment(and rightly so), did not pull God down on an operating table to dissect Him and His mysteries; such as was done in the overly scholastic western Christianity.
What I learned, by God's grace, from this experience were two things; firstly, it is better to talk to them about what the Eucharist does in the life of the believer, rather than how this epiclesis works on a carnal level that satisfies the senses. It matters not how the change happens, but it's enough that it happens. Theophilus' quote of John Damascene above sums it up nicely.
Secondly, if they are taught the meaning of the Eucharist, its necessity, and its vital role in the believer's life, they'll shed their unquenchable curiosity for the incomprehensible and will rather seek to live this Eucharistic/Liturgical life more deeply.
I think it was St Augustine who stated that we shouldn't seek to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand. Now there are certainly things in the faith which must be understood & pass through sound judgement but this a mystery that traverses beyond this realm.
Goes contrary to how modern rationalization works, but Augustine does nail it here because that's how the spiritual man is illumined, enlightened and eventually enters into the mysteries which he himself experiences but can't put in words. When a person reaches this level, he won't need words or explanations, nor will he want them. I speak here of the mysteries.
So in this sense, transubstantiation is not a change in the accidents, and there are no "red blood cells" floating around in the cup.
See Cardinal George Pell here between 46:10 and 46:35. (The rest of the debate is not that great.)
RO
The very short answer:
Transubstantiation is Catholic and Orthodox, Consubstantiation is Lutheran.
Transubstantiation means that the substance of bread and wine are transformed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet remain in the accidents of bread and wine. This goes against the magical stories of certain people who say that they see meat and blood on the altar, which would be a change in the accidents and not the substance.
Consubstantiation is Martin Luther's response to the doctrine of transubstantiation, with which he claims that the substance of bread and wine become linked with the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, but they are not the actual substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, what you see as accidents is what you get as a substance. This is heresy :)
+++
Long answer is below. The first is what the Catholic Council of Trent defined as the doctrine of transubstantiation. It's important to know what Catholic say, rather than make assumptions of what they say and criticize caricatures of doctrine. The second quote is from one of the Coptic Orthodox Popes, Patriarch Matthew the Poor, who agrees with the Catholic doctrine and disagrees with the Protestant doctrine. Based on this evidence, one could at least say that historically, the Coptic Orthodox Church agreed with the Catholic Church on the doctrine of transubstantiation. This changed after the Orthodox began to use Protestant sources to attack Catholic missionary work in Egypt and abroad.
Here begin the quotes:
The Ecumenical Council of Trent
Thirteenth Session
CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ….
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.
+++
Patriarch Matthew IV (Patriarch 1660-1675 A.D.)
A Refutation of the Calvinists, Par. Ar. 226
(Translated by Stephen J. Davis)
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. Glory to the eternal God. Salvation belongs to the Lord, and by the Lord comes salvation.
The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the grace of his living Holy Spirit who resided on his pure disciples and in his holy, righteous apostles on holy and revered Mount Zion, that divine peace and that blessings itself, may they reside alwas within our venerable and blessed Christian brothers. May the blessing of God be upn them all with all the heavenly blessings, Amen. We will teach them after the renewal of blessings upon them, and I will bestow spiritual peace upon them.
It has come to our ears that the enemy speaks among you concerning the faith… We write to you this correspondence… It is from me, Matthew the Poor, the servant of Jesus Christ by the grace of God, the one for whom it is inconceivable -- he who is unworthy -- to be called Patriarch over the great city of Alexandria and its environs, along with the cities of the Coptc in Egypt and the towns in Ethiopia, Nubia, Africa, and Nicaea. I have written this out of love for everyone who sees this letter and reads it.
We already know that the heretics from among the Europeans (the Protestants) oppose with special stubbornness the great mystery -- the body of Christ -- which is the holy eucharistic offering, and they deny its truth, saying that Jesus Christ is not present in it in his essence but only in his likeness. They also say about us that we do not believe in that holy mystery -- that is, that we have not believed the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, nor that he is truly present on the holy altar in the eucharistic offering after the (words of) consecration. They also say that the holy eucharistic offering is not the true body of Jesus Christ under the species of the bread, which is called Christ’s body on account of the power of the Holy Spirit that is present in it. And they say that the eucharistic offering, which we call the body of Christ, is not the same body that is in heaven. They say that Christ is only in heaven, and not on the earth in his essence: (according to them) the thing that we see is not the true body, but only bread. Thus, they say about us that we do not in fact bow down to the body of Jesus Christ in the eucharistic offering by a special act of worship devoted to God. They also say that the sinners who partake of the eucharistic offering have not partaken of the body of Christ. Because of these words that we have heard, we have requested forgiveness from God for their sake. However, we advise them with the following counsel.
… We will now clarify for them our belief, and we say to them and before all people that the Jacobite communion of the Copts accepts and confesses the true faith. It was the body of Christ himself that rose to heaven and that is seated on the right hand of the Father on high. That body in its very essence and substance is present in the holy eucharistic offering. He is not visible on account of the presence of his very own body on the altar sanctified to him by an act of special worship devoted to God, just as the communion of the Latin church believes. And we are with them on this particular matter…. These (Protestant) heretics lie about us, saying that after the consecration we do not worship nor bow down to it. We believe and we say that evil persons partake of the body of Christ with their mouths, just like good persons do. The former do so to their eternal damnation, but the latter do so for the sake of their salvation. We say and believe that the bread and wine have been truly changed into the substance of Jesus Christ’s body, and into the substance of his noble blood, so that after the consecration the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine do not remain, and (we also believe) that the holy mystery is given to the sick in order that they may die in the grace of God, in order that their provisions may be in the kingdom of heaven. Now, do we say that it is incredible and improper to accept (the idea) that one body can be in many places at one moment in time? For the one who created the world with a word is able to do this wondrous thing. He enacts his body by his Word when he says through the mouth of the priest, ‘This is my body,’ and he gave his body to his disciples in Emmaus, while being nowhere. And just as his divinity was hidden in the womb of the Virgin Mary, in the same way it is hidden in the accidents of the bread and wine. The matter is the same, because this was necessary for God to put our fidelity to the test, so that we might (prove ourselves to) be (faithful). For when Jesus Christ enjoined us to ‘eat my body,’ it was difficult for us.
We also believe and firmly hold that this faith -- which has continued from the command of Jesus Christ our Lord until today through the (faithful) transmission of our fathers, the chaste apostles and saints -- is the faith which we will preserve until our death. We have excommunicated all who have opposed the apostolic trust when they speak about this tenet regarding the holy eucharistic offering mentioned above, and (all who) have opposed the transformation of the substance of the bread into the substance of Christ. This we have demonstrated to everyone who has read this document, and to everyone who has opposed it, saying that we do not accept the transformation of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, they speak falsely and they oppose the truth with respect to this holy mystery, because in this respect we hold fast to it along with the Latin church. We have clarified and taught it, and have put our seal on it. This (teaching) comes to your knowledge, so receive it in Christian love.
I will bring this letter to a close. This poor one asks the One who possesses the treasures of mercy to illuminate your minds and to lead you to all things good and heavenly that please Him, so that you may be sons of the Orthodox Church whose reputation has spread to the remotest parts of the inhabited world by the blessings of the pure and chaste Lady, the Virgin Mary, the angels and archangels, all the martyrs and saints, and all who have pleased the Lord with their good works, now and always, until the end of the ages. Amen. Amen. Amen.
Agape,
The very short answer:
Transubstantiation is Catholic and Orthodox, Consubstantiation is Lutheran.
Transubstantiation means that the substance of bread and wine are transformed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet remain in the accidents of bread and wine. This goes against the magical stories of certain people who say that they see meat and blood on the altar, which would be a change in the accidents and not the substance.
Consubstantiation is Martin Luther's response to the doctrine of transubstantiation, with which he claims that the substance of bread and wine become linked with the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, but they are not the actual substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, what you see as accidents is what you get as a substance. This is heresy :)
+++
I am pretty sure that we believe in Consubstantiation...
Theophilus, I'm not sure that this is the meaning of transubstantiation. It is a little more platonic than that. The Greeks defined objects as having two components - the substance and the accidents. The substance would be the "core" or "essence" of the object. The accidents are the ways in which we experience and interact with the substance. Thus, in this understanding, the transubstantiation (as I understood it) means that the essence is changed and indeed takes on the essence of deity. However, the accidents remain unchanged. The accidents in this case are the starches and sugars found in the bread.
So in this sense, transubstantiation is not a change in the accidents, and there are no "red blood cells" floating around in the cup.
See Cardinal George Pell here between 46:10 and 46:35. (The rest of the debate is not that great.)
RO
ReturnOrthodoxy
I haven’t even heard of the Greek philosopy of substance and accident before. I learned something new - Thanks. The way you explained it makes sense!
Thank you Biboboy for the great quote. It help me understand what ReturnOrthodoxy explained.
In Christ
Theophilus
Thanks, but please don't take my word for it. I was just saying it as I understood it. I'm sure you know enough theology to understand and teach me, but I was just putting forth what I understood.
Thanks for listening though, and its nice to interact with you always,
RO
Here's the interesting post by Fr. Irenei in the Monachos thread:
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1520-are-the-body-and-blood-still-bread-and-wine/?p=24707
God bless.
PS: An Addendum
[quote="Fr. Irenei Steeneberg's Post"]
Since there has been reference made to the teachings of the fathers, I thought it might be helpful to provide a few selections. Primarily these will show that the fathers do not express a single dogmatic declaration on this point: they insist that the Eucharistic chalice truly contains the true body and blood; but there is no dogmatic patristic consensus on the 'how' or 'what' of this real and true body and blood's relation to the elements of the offering.
From Gelasius, Bishop of Rome in the fifth century:
[list][li]"Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries."[/li]
Eusebius of Caesarea, writing earlier, speaks in the traditional patristic language of the eucharistic symbols: those created means by which one truly encounters things divine:
- [li]"We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant." (Demonstratio Evangelica)[/li]
Macarius the Great spoke in terms - again traditionally patristic - of the bread and wine being 'figures'; not in a weak sense of 'just representing', but in the deep sense of real encounter:- [li]"Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord." (Homily 27)[/li]
This, which some might consider a weak image, can be balanced with someone like Justin Martyr (and note here especially his focus on the incarnate Jesus as the one made present):- [li]"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." (First Apology 66)[/li]
Irenaeus, a near-contemporary of Jesus, makes the point of the bread and wine receiving the Word of God and becoming the body and blood, precisely as a means of showing how our body, which remains body, also receives Christ's incarnate life:- [li]"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him?" (Detection and overthrow, 5.2)[/li]
Irenaeus also writes, stressing that the bread is the body and the wine the blood (i.e. they are one and the same - the whole thrust of his discussion):- [li]"[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."[/li]
The following is taken from the homilies of St Ephrem the Syrian. I find this particularly insightful and pure: St Ephrem intertwines precisely the reality of the bread that is the body - therefore a 'bread not to be regarded as bread':- [li]"Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: 'Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.' But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body." (Homily 4.4)[/li]
And again from St Ephrem's homilies:- [li]"After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out. ...Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: 'This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old." (Homily 4.6)[/li]
As before, what is notable is the way Ephrem refers to the bread and the body as one and the same 'the new and holy bread', in the eating of which the disciplies knew 'they had eaten of Christ's body'.St Gregory of Nyssa, in his great catechism on the faith, writes the following, stressing that the bread is 'made over' into the Body, by the Word's 'lodging there' in the bread:
- [li]"Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh."[/li]
Perhaps Gregory is at his most succinct when he simply writes, in the same oration:- [li]"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."[/li]
In a sense, St Gregory's whole thrust, summed up in this phrase, makes the point I am trying to express: that the fathers are certain that in the offering and sanctification the bread and wine are become the real, true, full body and blood of the Saviour; but they do not demand that it is no longer also bread.But my point, despite how it seems to have been characterised in one or two of the above posts, is decidedly not that the fathers dogmatically insist that the body and blood must be still also bread and wine; to me this is just as problematic an error of over-intellectualising the mystery of the Eucharist. There are certainly fathers who speak emphatically in the other direction (though they are fewer). For example, St Cyril of Alexandria says this:
- [li]"We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice." (Cat. 22.9)[/li]
And Andreas has already mentioned a passage from Cyril of Jerusalem in his pre-baptismal orations:The term "Transubstantiation" and "consubstantiation" are foreign to Orthodoxy. The term used in the liturgy is "change".
And this "change" happens in what sense?
Just because some terms were developed, through philosophy and reason, to express a doctrine of the Church that was foreign to one's one culture and theological thinking, it doesn't follow that we can't agree to the terms. Even the word "consubstantial" was foreign to Orthodoxy for the first 300 years of Christian history, and one wouldn't find it in the pre-Nicene Fathers.
Theophilus,
Thanks, but please don't take my word for it. I was just saying it as I understood it. I'm sure you know enough theology to understand and teach me, but I was just putting forth what I understood.
Thanks for listening though, and its nice to interact with you always,
RO
Thank you Return Orthodoxy for your kind words but I am simply lucky that I have teachers around me; if only I was diligent to study. This forum is a wonderful place to learn from one another.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=14367.msg164185#msg164185 date=1365774846]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=14367.msg164178#msg164178 date=1365733921]
The term "Transubstantiation" and "consubstantiation" are foreign to Orthodoxy. The term used in the liturgy is "change".
And this "change" happens in what sense?
Just because some terms were developed, through philosophy and reason, to express a doctrine of the Church that was foreign to one's one culture and theological thinking, it doesn't follow that we can't agree to the terms. Even the word "consubstantial" was foreign to Orthodoxy for the first 300 years of Christian history, and one wouldn't find it in the pre-Nicene Fathers.
I second Imikhail! The Coptic Church doesn’t use terms such as “Transubstantiation” or “Consubstantiation”.
Fr. Daniel Azer of California, an authority in matters of Dogma, thought us this in no ambiguous manner. If I have to compare Fr. Daniel’s knowledge of Church Dogma it is the equivalent of Fr. Shenouda Maher’s knowledge of Church Canons. Now, we should honor the faith delivered to us and try to preserve it. When Fr. Daniel Azer was teaching us about this topic he used many quotes of which I posted two above. Here they are again:
Saint GREGORY OF NYSSA says, "Rightly then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word."
In the words of John of Damascus: "the bread itself and the wine are made over into the Body and Blood of God. If you inquire into the way in which this happens, let it suffice for you to hear that it is through the Holy Spirit. . . . More than this we do not know, except that the word of God is true and effective and all- powerful; but the manner [of the Eucharistic transformation] is inscrutable."
In Christ
Theopilus
I think you may have passed over Bibo's point. Terms and the terms used to define certain things are constantly changing and being adopted in the church. For example, Athanasius use of "Homo-ousios" would have never have been used in previous times. This term was a complete adaptation of Athanasius. The term "Homo-ousios" was a Gnostic term prior to Origen, and then refined for usage in the Nicean creed. But this term had been almost heretic prior to Athanasius! The church must utilize the action of the Holy Spirit inside of it, to understand how to use terms, should it become necessary.
The early fathers of the church, such as Clement of Rome, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas did not use Nicean terms to define the relationship of the Son with the Father. This is not because they rejected the terms, but because there had not arisen a need to make such a definition. The son's co-equality with the Father had been am uncontested fact, and so, no explanation or definition was needed. With the rise of Arian thought, definitions needed to be adopted where before, they were not.
It is the same in the use of Transubstantiation. While the church did not use it before, it is not necessarily a rejection of such terms, but merely, a lack of use because no need had arisen. Now, there is a need in the west to explain what we mean. I do agree, however, that our definition should not overshadow the mystery. I see your concern is tht you don't want to define a mystery, and so limit it. This is noble, but it should not come at the expense of rejecting something which makes Orthodox theological implications.
Dr. George Bebawi says, "You don't start with a definition. You start with a relationship, and the relationship will define the meaning of the word." As such, we certainly do not start our understanding of the Eucharistic mystery with a definition, but with a lived relationship with the God who is present in the Eucharist. From that relationship, we may bring out a definition if the need should arise.
I think we all agree on this. We recognize that the words themselves are not incorrect, and that there are orthodox interpretations to them, but we also agree that the mystery and meaning of the Eucharist must not be stolen by words. It seems like another "Apophatic" vs. "Cataphatic" debate. Both are fine, but it is the worshiper's relationship with God which define what he uses.
Further, John of Damascus does not see to be saying that it is wrong to explain what the change is, but how the change comes about. There are some who would like to know the mechanism by which this happens. The mechanism is what St. John disagrees with inquiring into. Questions like, "Is it the words that cause the change? Or is it the actions of the priest? Or the faith of the priest?" He is not refusing to speak of what the change is, but how the change comes about. At least, it seems so to me
RO
[Edit]: Addendum
The terms consubstantiation and transubstantiation are not used within the Orthodox Church. The reason they both currently have meanings that conflict with the Church's understanding.
The Church chose to use the word "change".
May be in a 100 or 200 years the terms consubstantiation and transubstantiation will carry the meaning and the definition that the word "change" carry. May be then the Church will use them.
Please don't be vague. Saying they carry different meanings doesn't add to the conversation at all. Your words were, "they both have meanings that conflict with the church's understanding." I want you to prove this right now. I don't want you to say, "The church uses the word change" because all you are doing in that is saying that we don't use the syntax "Transubstantiation." I need you to show how we disagree with the concept of maintaining the physical attributes constant while changing the essence (which is what transubstantiation is).
So my question for you is a simple one. How does the idea of Transubstantiation, as it is now, conflict the Orthodox view of change. For your point to be qualified, you need to answer this without resorting to a question of terminology.
The church is organic, and so, it evolves to use different terms as long as the meaning is correct. To say that the term transubstantiation does not mean change (as you implied in your last paragraph) makes no sense since the word "Transubstantiation" is literally composed of the word "change" and "substance." They cannot be different. "Transubstantiation" is not different from the word "change" but is just more specific as to what that change is. It is a change in substance (which in the original Latin in which the term was coined would mean essence.) What I am showing is that Transubstantiation does not contradict the word "change" but only specifies it.
Does the Orthodox Church in your opinion disagree with the fact that the essence of the bread becomes the body of Christ?
RO
I can't understand why some would think that the use of the word transubstantiation takes away the mystery of the transformation or change of the Holy Mysteries! If anything, it maintains the mystery even more. Just think about it: have you ever seen anything change in substance? Take the changes of the states of water: whether the water becomes liquid, or solid, or gas, all this is a change in accidents, and not substance. You as a human being are in essence (substance) a human person, regardless of whether you have black hair, brown hair, green eyes, fat, thin, dark skin, etc., all os which are accidents that are changeable, yet your substance (human person) remains the same. All things in nature, following natural law, can change in accidents but not in substance.
For something, like the Eucharist, to change in substance but remain the same in accidents IS a Mystery!
imikhail,
Please don't be vague. Saying they carry different meanings doesn't add to the conversation at all. Your words were, "they both have meanings that conflict with the church's understanding." I want you to prove this right now. I don't want you to say, "The church uses the word change" because all you are doing in that is saying that we don't use the syntax "Transubstantiation." I need you to show how we disagree with the concept of maintaining the physical attributes constant while changing the essence (which is what transubstantiation is).
So my question for you is a simple one. How does the idea of Transubstantiation, as it is now, conflict the Orthodox view of change. For your point to be qualified, you need to answer this without resorting to a question of terminology.
The church is organic, and so, it evolves to use different terms as long as the meaning is correct. To say that the term transubstantiation does not mean change (as you implied in your last paragraph) makes no sense since the word "Transubstantiation" is literally composed of the word "change" and "substance." They cannot be different. "Transubstantiation" is not different from the word "change" but is just more specific as to what that change is. It is a change in substance (which in the original Latin in which the term was coined would mean essence.) What I am showing is that Transubstantiation does not contradict the word "change" but only specifies it.
Does the Orthodox Church in your opinion disagree with the fact that the essence of the bread becomes the body of Christ?
RO
You need to read the above explanation of the terms which were already given in this thread. The idea that the term transubstantiation carry conflict with Orthodoxy.
We do not eat physical meat and drink physical blood at the church .. this is what transubstantiation try to explain (the physical wheat becomes physical flesh and the same with the wine).
We Orthodox do not analyze the physical change .. we do not say that the chemicals have been transubstantiated with others .. we simply do not care. We only care that the offerings have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit and have the same power of the body and blood of our Lord to unite us with Him as He explained in John 6.
That is not the definition of transubstantiation. I already explained the meaning of substance, and gave a reference to a catholic cardinals explanation of how substance does not imply a change in the physical constituents. I think it's clear to those who read without a point to prove.
Show me where it is claimed that transubstantiation implies a change in physical constituents. If you can do that, you win. Until now, such a definition had not been given. Rather, I have given linguistic proof as well as a catholic bishop explaining the term. Since it is a term the Catholics adhere to, then it makes sense to trust their definition since they function on the definition.
And to say we do not care is absolutely incorrect. We do. We care that it is not symbolic, and we care that it is not a physical change. Don't we? We do. Thus we do care to explain what we believe. We don't define the mystery. We define our belief.
You need to read the above explanation of the terms which were already given in this thread. The idea that the term transubstantiation carry conflict with Orthodoxy.
We do not eat physical meet and drink physical blood at the church .. this is what transubstantiation try to explain (the physical wheat becomes physical flesh and the same with the wine).
We Orthodox do not analyze the physical change .. we do not say that the chemicals have been transubstantiated with others .. we simply do not care. We only care that the offerings have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit and have the same power of the body and blood of our Lord to unite us with Him as He explained in John 6.
I repeat what I wrote earlier:
Transubstantiation means that the substance of bread and wine are transformed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet remain in the accidents of bread and wine. This goes against the magical stories of certain people who say that they see meat and blood on the altar, which would be a change in the accidents and not the substance.
Concerning what you're saying about the Coptic Orthodox not teaching the doctrine of transubstantiation, I have two points for you to consider:
1) I've quoted the letter by a Coptic Orthodox patriarch 400 years ago who said that the Coptic Orthodox believe in transubstantiation, and that he excommunicated all those who did not believe it.
2) The teaching and acceptance of this doctrine is part of the current curriculum in the Coptic Orthodox seminaries in Egypt.
IF anything, you need to reconsider your extremely generalized sources, mostly taken from the Parisian School of Orthodoxy that has nothing to do with Coptic Orthodoxy.
Imikhail,
That is not the definition of transubstantiation. I already explained the meaning of substance, and gave a reference to a catholic cardinals explanation of how substance does not imply a change in the physical constituents. I think it's clear to those who read without a point to prove.
Show me where it is claimed that transubstantiation implies a change in physical constituents. If you can do that, you win. Until now, such a definition had not been given. Rather, I have given linguistic proof as well as a catholic bishop explaining the term. Since it is a term the Catholics adhere to, then it makes sense to trust their definition since they function on the definition.
And to say we do not care is absolutely incorrect. We do. We care that it is not symbolic, and we care that it is not a physical change. Don't we? We do. Thus we do care to explain what we believe. We don't define the mystery. We define our belief.
This is not a matter of winning and losing. This is a matter of faith.
It seems you have your own definition and your own idea of what transubstantiation is. I am really not concerned about that.
What we are concerned about is what other denominations believe what transubstantiation is. To that I have to refer you to the Catholic encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm
In this article you will find how the latins see transubstatiation and the belief of a change in the chemical substance.
First it calls consubstantiation an heretical doctrine, then it says that "the dogma" of transubstantiation has answered this heresy:
The controversy from the ninth to the twelfth century, after which time the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholic dogma.
Yoy can also read a more elaborate definition of the term and how the Latins rationalize the conversion of materials in this article
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
Hope this clears the issue.
The Catholic encyclopedia is not the Catechism of the Roman Church. There's a couple of outdated things and the Roman Church today has widened views on many issues. Not sure about the Eucharist though. I would say the way transubstantiation is defined is consonant with St Cyril of Alexandria's views on the Eucharist. Arguably, transubstantitation is Cyrillian. But as I said earlier, consubstantiation does have Patristic support as well. It's not correct to say they're "unOrthodox", but it is prudent to think along the Damascene lines of sufficiency of the Holy Spirit.
Do you have a current source of how the Latins define the term?
Unless there is a definitive source that says otherwise, what I presented above is what the Latins believe and this belief is unorthodox.
It seems you are missing the point. Reread post 20, 21 and 22 to better understand and follow the discussion.
It does not matter whether they call "Consubstantiation" a heresy. What matters is what they believe happens during the consecration of the offerings.
"Consubstantiation":
"This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ's Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called "Impanation", a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation."
From the Council of Trent, against the hlutheran heresy of consubstantiation:
"If any one shall say that, in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema" (Session 13, Canon 2).
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5: