Transubstantiation And The Early Church

[linate]

if they believe in the "body and blood" then why would they refrain from going along with transubstantiation? or is it more that body and blood are present, but trying to pin it down is a no go? or?

[Apotheoun]

kind of like how the west always has to have an answer for everything. or how they formulated the substitutionary penal theory as they deemed it the best explanation for atonement, even though other theories were already present. 

The West likes to define things, while the East is happier with the mystery. But that is not to say that the East does not like to have doctrinal formulations too, because all seven of the Ecumenical Councils include a decree (ηορος).

[Selah]

if they believe in the "body and blood" then why would they refrain from going along with transubstantiation? or is it more that body and blood are present, but trying to pin it down is a no go? or?

 

Because it's a mystery, and to an eastern Christian, what is important is that a change does in fact take place, and that we believe, in faith, that they are the body and blood of Christ. We're just not all that interested in the specific whys and hows is all. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means there's no need for us to have it, we feel. 

[linate]

so, as asked, it's the pinning it down thing that's a no go. 

 

does that leave open an orthodox who would say the elements "are Christ" but chooses not to get into "body and blood" or not? if the body and blood are felt and part of the unspoken mystery, could it be open to interpretation or at least the issue solemnly not spoken of?

[Apotheoun]

does that leave open an orthodox who would say the elements "are Christ" but chooses not to get into "body and blood" or not? if the body and blood are felt and part of the unspoken mystery, could it be open to interpretation or at least the issue solemnly not spoken of?

No, because the prayers themselves speak (constantly) of the elements as the body and blood of Christ. In Orthodoxy: the rule of prayer determines the rule of belief.

[linate]

if i were an orthodox that thought the following, would it be okay?... "God is love. the father is love. in receiving the eucharist, i receive the Son, in full body blood soul and divinity. Jesus said he and the father are one. love incarnate. the word made flesh. the holy spirit is is like the bond between the father and son. and is God." etc etc. a lot of these thoughts I think were talked about by JPII and delved into with the theology of the body even. trinity is sort of a nonrational thing, 'the son is God, the father is God, the son is not the father' etc etc. so it might not neceessarily make rational sense.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

so, as asked, it's the pinning it down thing that's a no go. 

 

does that leave open an orthodox who would say the elements "are Christ" but chooses not to get into "body and blood" or not? if the body and blood are felt and part of the unspoken mystery, could it be open to interpretation or at least the issue solemnly not spoken of?

 

 

That Christ is fully present body,heart,soul and divinity in the host is a matter of infallible faith and morals for the holy catholic church and is not open to interpretation, though what Christ reveals personally and communally through his most precious body and blood perhaps is up to interpretation.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

if i were an orthodox that thought the following, would it be okay?... "God is love. the father is love. in receiving the eucharist, i receive the Son, in full body blood soul and divinity. Jesus said he and the father are one. love incarnate. the word made flesh. the holy spirit is is like the bond between the father and son. and is God." etc etc. a lot of these thoughts I think were talked about by JPII and delved into with the theology of the body even. trinity is sort of a nonrational thing, 'the son is God, the father is God, the son is not the father' etc etc. so it might not neceessarily make rational sense.

 

 

It is good that you are thinking about the relationship between the father,son and holy spirit. :) Ultimately in exactness it is a total mystery although in this life i have found he reveals bits and pieces of that eternal mystery over time in my personal relationship with him and my communal relationship with him. I guess that kind of reflects the 2 natures of the Christ, man and God, communal and individual :) We need both relationships they co exist, one without the other is incomplete.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Apotheoun]

if i were an orthodox that thought the following, would it be okay?... "God is love. the father is love. in receiving the eucharist, i receive the Son, in full body blood soul and divinity. Jesus said he and the father are one. love incarnate. the word made flesh. the holy spirit is is like the bond between the father and son. and is God." etc etc. a lot of these thoughts I think were talked about by JPII and delved into with the theology of the body even. trinity is sort of a nonrational thing, 'the son is God, the father is God, the son is not the father' etc etc. so it might not neceessarily make rational sense.

No, the Orthodox would not describe the Holy Spirit as the "bond of love" between the Father and the Son. Love is a common divine energy, and so each of the three persons possesses that divine attribute equally.

[linate]

i did see that 'bond of love' point being the weakest in my ideas. 

 

but JPII has said things very similar if not exact as that. i do realize that you are not keen on accepting everything from the roman church. in fact, the first search i did on theology of the body, and the trinity, noted something very similar.

 

"The love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father exists. It is God the Holy Spirit. The love that is the exchange of Persons between the Father and the Son is the Life that is the Spirit, with no beginning and no end. The Creed affirms that the Third Person of the Trinity is coequal with and proceeds from the Father and the Son."

 

that is similar to what i said. The spirit is the bond, yet also God. but i do acknowledge that the Spirit is more than just a bond. 

 

in that article i quoted, they even were talking about the Father being identified by the Son.

 

"The perfect self-knowledge of the Father exists. It is God the Son."

 

it is all an attempt to position them as comingling, much like the giving of selves and comingling of person with sex.

 

 

[linate]

another article...

 

"The inner life of God, according to John Paul, is self-giving love: The Father pours himself out in Gift to the Son, the Son pours himself out in Gift to the Father, and the Holy Spirit bursts forth as the fruit of their selfgiving love."

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The real and perpetual presence of christ are present in the holy eucharist. Both natural and supernatural. Both figurative and literal. Seen and unseen. :)

[reyb]

You will never stop wandering cyclically whether this body and blood mentioned in the scripture  (1 Cor 11:25, Luke 22:19, Mark 14:22-24) should be taken literally or figuratively because these words are not ‘words out of human wisdom and talent’ written in that kind of form. 

 

Nobody can write a spiritual word in figurative or literal manner in the same way they write ‘words out of human wisdom’ because of the nature of truth they bring.  Spiritual word bring spiritual truth and you will never find spiritual truth in any other kind of word,  whether written in figurative or literal form because spiritual words are taught and made known only by the spirit of God while any other kind of words are words used in conveying a message out human wisdom and talent. 

 

Let us take for example the word ‘Bread’. We all know what is ‘Bread’ in our table since it is a kind of food made of flour and water and baked in oven. But ‘Bread from heaven’ (see John 6:35ff) is a ‘spiritual bread’ and therefore, it should not be ‘a kind of bread made of flour and water and baked in oven’. Othewise, it is not a spiritual word anymore. .

 

Now, since you are not truly aware what is that ‘spiritual bread’ in the scripture,  you are now looking at the Eucharist  as the ‘spiritual bread’. I know you are honestly believe in your heart  that this Eucharist is Christ himself. But I must reminded you, your Eucharist is ‘a kind of bread made of flour and water and baked in oven’. The Eucharist is not Christ himself and I tried to tell about this in my post - ‘The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Lie’.

 

If the scripture truly speaks that the bread from heaven is the Eucharist then, its truthfulness must shine, and it must be a more understandable piece when someone read it from the scripture. If it is understandable then it must be logical. If it is logical then it is rational. If it is rational, logical, understandable then the Eucharistic Theology is not proper to be called a mystery.

 

Obviously, all promoter of this sacrament failed to explain its rationality. They failed to explain, even to themselves, the practical explanation how this bread changes in whatever body Jesus has. In fact, it is a sacrament not founded on reason or proper knowledge as admitted by Thomas Aquinas (please see Question 75 Summa Theologiae, Third Part). Meaning, it is a kind of knowledge which is lacking in rationality since the very beginning of its conception.

 

To make it short, Eucharistic Theology is simply a believer’s theory and its words are founded on nothing but faith. Hence, seeing it in the scripture as if it was expressed literally or in metaphor is not possible without destroying itself every time an explanation was demanded in its truthfulness. Surely, it will not survive because; lies have no room in the presence of truth.

 

If you think I am wrong then try this. Let us take the first point of inquiry presented in Question 75 to wit:

 

(1)          Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?

(from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, Question 75: Of The Change Of Bread And Wine Into The Body And Blood Of Christ)

 

Test that bread before and after consecration, and you will find the same substance. It will remain  just a piece of bread and nothing special about it.

 

 

From: Rey Baltazar C. Tolentino

Edited December 4, 2013 by reyb