Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist..

[Lukaris]

If you go to the following link:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/ziton_epiklesis.htm

It explains some of my questions. Well, maybe not that well. But anyway.

Congratulations on reaching the #50 post milestone in being able to post a link.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

thanks for the link! (lol it's funny how you tried to reach the right number of posts )

I think though that in the link, the Catholic doctrine is not described correctly. (I'd have to check though to make sure).

The bread must remain bread, and in the substance of the bread is contained the Godhead. It is not a replacement of bread into Body, but a change into Body. One substance also contains the substance of the divine. To destroy would mean that Christ destroys one nature to replace it by another. This is not so. Christ does not destroy, but He replaces with the bread His Holy Divine Substance. “This is my body —This is my blood.” It means equal and that, it truly is. In the 15th century the Eastern Church took over the term Transubstantiation without the theory, and used it as synonymous with the term “change” (conversion), in Greek “Metabole.” The Eastern Church does not recognize that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ while the accidents remain under which the Body and Blood of Christ exist, but simply says that the bread and wine are changed into the Very Body and Blood of Christ by the descent of the Holy Spirit, through whom these things surpassing reason and understanding are achieved.

the RCC does not teach that the 'bread' nature is destroyed..but that it is, in fact, changed. Transformed.

The whole life of the Orthodox Church is in the Holy Spirit. Thus through the Holy Spirit is all accomplished. The priest invokes the Holy Spirit to change the gifts. The Roman Catholics reject Christ’s presence in the Liturgy in our consecration as we have it,

this is not true, we believe that the EO do have the Eucharist as well

because the Roman Catholic priest takes the place of Christ: taking the full power of Christ. The Roman Catholic belief is that the priest is another Christ, and he needs no special need of prayers, because He is Christ. There is no need for the Holy Spirit in the act. But John the Baptist only recognized Christ because the Spirit descended and remained upon Him. “And John bear record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending, and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” (John 1:32-33) Thus we see that Christ worked all in the Spirit: so how can the Roman Catholic priests say that the Holy Spirit is not needed to change the gifts into the true Body and Blood of Christ if in reality the Roman Catholic priest is another Christ?

wow I'm sorry but this is entirely incorrect!!!
We DO teach that it's ALL by the Holy Spirit, and the part about the priest being "another Christ" is not phrased well...that's not exactly it... but oki. Mostly I just want to say that we DO believe it happens entirely by the Holy Spirit, the priest must be there to say the words but it's not by the priests' power that the transformation happens.

I hope it doesn't look like I'm debating; cause..I'm not debating Orthodox doctrine here, but just clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches

oki back to Orthodox doctrine..

so - just putting everything together - do you believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist in His 'essence', but we don't receive this, we only receive the 'energies'? If so, my question is - (sorry I have so many questions) - does this mean we don't actually receive His actual Body and Blood is His Body = essence? or energy? And ..maybe this is something we don't know? sorry if this is getting to complex...

I was taught (in the RCC) that - when we receive the Eucharist we are really united to Christ Himself...because we receive His actual Body..

thanks

 

[MoNiCa4316]

But....no we do take Christ, we just do not "see" it but taste bread and wine. That is why we call it "mystical" super... As it is not "revealed" to 'others' of that mystery that is eucharist "appears" to be ONLY bread and wine but in reality it is the precious body and blood of Christ.

True though again we are not participants of God's essence and would never be for we would have to be Gods... ourselves.

I agree with your first paragraph.. in fact, isnt' that basically transubstantiation saying that - it's really His Body and Blood but doesn't look like it, and only "appears" as the bread and wine.

For the second paragraph, hmm I'm not sure how it would make us gods, wouldn't it just make us united to Him? I have no idea here.. I don't even know if there is a distinction between energies and essence. I'm researching this (both RCC and EOC views)

God bless

 

[JeremiahsBulldog]

Monica,

I'm afraid that the website I posted isn't all that clear. Sorry.

Makes me wonder if it was worth it to tire myself out running to that #50 post

Oh, well.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

it's oki now you can post links though!

 

[Philothei]

Monica take your mind of transubstantiation please... It is all together a "different breed"... That means that it does not even compare to the RC Aristolelian aquinian idea of "scientific" explanation of "the mystery of the Eucarist"... Please if you do believe in the
RC idea of the Eucarist there is no reason for you to "compare" it as it useless to do here in our congregation forum...

It is not a matter of what you agree or not. You have to buy the Palamas book of the Trilogies.. And guess what... Palamas does not specify about Eucarist so you will even get more confused there... As it was told to you instead of coming here send an email to our Archdiocese sites and they will assign you with a priest so you can engange into conversation about these things.

How can we partake of divinity when we ourselves are not of the same nature with God? We areONLY partakers of his "revealed" nature.... that is His energies as the "totallity" we cannot partake as it says "no one can experience the fullness of God and live" Does this mean in the after life we would experience the totality of God in his essence? I do not know but from my Bishop I believe that we will not... Even then by Grace ONLY we could participate in his energies but as we are not of the same nature of God we will not comprehend Him completely and it is only logical....

 

[Philothei]

The whole life of the Orthodox Church is in the Holy Spirit. Thus through the Holy Spirit is all accomplished. The priest invokes the Holy Spirit to change the gifts.

The priest in the EO church is an 'instrument" of whom God acts on his people... The priest being the "icon of Christ" but not "Christ" "mediates" for the people... It is God who through his spirit blesses the people... That is of vital sacramental importance....

The Roman Catholics reject Christ’s presence in the Liturgy in our consecration as we have it, because the Roman Catholic priest takes the place of Christ: taking the full power of Christ. The Roman Catholic belief is that the priest is another Christ, and he needs no special need of prayers, because He is Christ.

Quite so as the RC priest by words ( I baptize you, I give you...etc. i unite you to marriage) and bodily expressions such as facing the people as Christ would do, he gives the signal that he is Christ and acts as his "representative"...That idea of the priesthood in that light comes from the Pope as he is the "vicar" of Christ his representative on earth the same way the priest is just that assuming his power of vicarcy over the congregation That is why Catholicism is wrong in its theology of the supremacy... Because it has severe doctrinal manifestations on the way we worship

There is no need for the Holy Spirit in the act. But John the Baptist only recognized Christ because the Spirit descended and remained upon Him. “And John bear record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending, and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” (John 1:32-33) Thus we see that Christ worked all in the Spirit: so how can the Roman Catholic priests say that the Holy Spirit is not needed to change the gifts into the true Body and Blood of Christ if in reality the Roman Catholic priest is another Christ?

And it makes more sence as the holy spirit is not ONLY present at the time of consencration and then goes away like the RC believes and rings the bell ... .like that is the clue for the HS to come down.. .We box it in a time... The spirit is active during the whole Mystagogy of the Eucarist and there is no set time for concencration... And even worse they do not think that there is need of the Holy spirit? how sad....

In the EO the priest says ... "Agiason (bless) those gifts...." or "he is been baptized in the name of the ...." Always attributing every act in the name of the Trinity witht he epiclesis of the Holy Spirit

Before you cut down this ... passage let me explain Monica why the writter says this:

When the Roman Catholic priest says “take eat, this is my body and drink ye all this is my blood” then does the consecration take place. A moment of consecration. Their whole Epiclesis is in the moment of consecration. This is the only thing needed by them, and they believe they don’t need anything else but the moment.

Like we can define God ... and box Him in....

Therefore, the moment of consecration of the Roman Catholic Church becomes a process, a mode of operation in prayer for the Greek Orthodox, for if only the moment were needed, for what use are the other prayers in the Liturgy? If it is so, then the only thing needed is the moment without the rest of the prayers of the Roman Catholic Mass. But the whole act, as said, is in the Spirit, and is one knit prayer. The Liturgy and all the Church is transformed into the parish of God, because the Holy Spirit acts in it. It all becomes an action of the Holy Spirit. Thus, so, the Greek Orthodox Epiklesis or consecration is the general form of Christian prayer coming to us from the early Church where all is accomplished . . . in the Spirit, and “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood through Holy Communion after the consecration of the gifts in the Liturgy — you have no life in you: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died: he who eats this bread will live forever.”

He did a good job explaining it... I did more poorly I guess...

 

[Philothei]

'm not debating Orthodox doctrine here, but just clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches

but you do.... we are not interested what the RC teaches.. You can do that in your mind after you read what we post Try it it defenately works!!! I do it when I post in other congregational forums I make mental notes...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Monica take your mind of transubstantiation please... It is all together a "different breed"... That means that it does not even compare to the RC Aristolelian aquinian idea of "scientific" explanation of "the mystery of the Eucarist"... Please if you do believe in the
RC idea of the Eucarist there is no reason for you to "compare" it as it useless to do here in our congregation forum...

It is not a matter of what you agree or not. You have to buy the Palamas book of the Trilogies.. And guess what... Palamas does not specify about Eucarist so you will even get more confused there... As it was told to you instead of coming here send an email to our Archdiocese sites and they will assign you with a priest so you can engange into conversation about these things.

How can we partake of divinity when we ourselves are not of the same nature with God? We areONLY partakers of his "revealed" nature.... that is His energies as the "totallity" we cannot partake as it says "no one can experience the fullness of God and live" Does this mean in the after life we would experience the totality of God in his essence? I do not know but from my Bishop I believe that we will not... Even then by Grace ONLY we could participate in his energies but as we are not of the same nature of God we will not comprehend Him completely and it is only logical....

I think in a way we're almost speaking in different languages here.. hmm.. I think maybe this will help clear some things up - when I said that in the Eucharist we are united with Christ, that doesn't mean the whole "totallity", the whole "fulness" of God. But simply - with His REAL presence. Not merely with His grace, but Him.

In my understanding, when you say "energies" you are not meaning God Himself, but rather His graces?

Also, I think it says "no one can see God and live" - but maybe that's just a different translation, I don't know, and maybe I'm wrong.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

but you do.... we are not interested what the RC teaches.. You can do that in your mind after you read what we post Try it it defenately works!!! I do it when I post in other congregational forums I make mental notes...

I don't know, if I say something wrong about Orthodox doctrine at OBOB, I wouldn't be insulted if an Orthodox person corrected me.. but, as you wish..

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The priest in the EO church is an 'instrument" of whom God acts on his people... The priest being the "icon of Christ" but not "Christ" "mediates" for the people... It is God who through his spirit blesses the people... That is of vital sacramental importance....

"The Roman Catholics reject Christ’s presence in the Liturgy in our consecration as we have it, because the Roman Catholic priest takes the place of Christ: taking the full power of Christ. The Roman Catholic belief is that the priest is another Christ, and he needs no special need of prayers, because He is Christ."

Quite so as the RC priest by words ( I baptize you, I give you...etc. i unite you to marriage) and bodily expressions such as facing the people as Christ would do, he gives the signal that he is Christ and acts as his "representative"...That idea of the priesthood in that light comes from the Pope as he is the "vicar" of Christ his representative on earth the same way the priest is just that assuming his power of vicarcy over the congregation That is why Catholicism is wrong in its theology of the supremacy... Because it has severe doctrinal manifestations on the way we worship

that is not true, we actually believe that what makes Sacraments work at all is that the grace in them comes from the Holy Spirit. the Pope is the "representative" of Christ but he is not Christ, not another one, he is also an "icon" - like a symbol, a visible representation of an invisible spiritual reality.

Please Philothei, first you tell me that I can't clarify Catholic doctrine here, but then you try to describe Catholic doctrine to me and incorrectly.. sorry..

And it makes more sence as the holy spirit is not ONLY present at the time of consencration and then goes away like the RC believes and rings the bell ... .like that is the clue for the HS to come down.. .We box it in a time... The spirit is active during the whole Mystagogy of the Eucarist and there is no set time for concencration... And even worse they do not think that there is need of the Holy spirit? how sad....

if you want to know what the Catholics believe, please learn from Catholics, I don't mean me, but - ask at OBOB, perhaps, - not Orthodox articles.. just like if you wanted to learn about Orthodoxy, you would ask at TAW, not OBOB.

We DO believe that it's ALL by the Holy Spirit.

In the EO the priest says ... "Agiason (bless) those gifts...." or "he is been baptized in the name of the ...." Always attributing every act in the name of the Trinity witht he epiclesis of the Holy Spirit

Before you cut down this ... passage let me explain Monica why the writter says this:




Like we can define God ... and box Him in....



He did a good job explaining it... I did more poorly I guess...

oki.. well I don't think it's trying to put God in a box, rather the liturgy is a way to make everything accessible to us...

I don't really want to argue this any more

Peace

 

[MoNiCa4316]

How can we partake of divinity when we ourselves are not of the same nature with God? We areONLY partakers of his "revealed" nature.... that is His energies as the "totallity" we cannot partake as it says "no one can experience the fullness of God and live" Does this mean in the after life we would experience the totality of God in his essence? I do not know but from my Bishop I believe that we will not... Even then by Grace ONLY we could participate in his energies but as we are not of the same nature of God we will not comprehend Him completely and it is only logical....

do you think that it is possible to partake of God's essence but not in totality? Rather - as much as we're able to? That's sort of what I meant.. not that we can partake of the fullness of God.. but just be united with Him in the Eucharist - not with just the energies, but actually with Him..

maybe I should clarify something first though.. God's energies are not Him, right? or..wrong?

 

[Philothei]

I think in a way we're almost speaking in different languages here.. hmm.. I think maybe this will help clear some things up - when I said that in the Eucharist we are united with Christ, that doesn't mean the whole "totallity", the whole "fulness" of God. But simply - with His REAL presence. Not merely with His grace, but Him.

It is real presence you got that right .. .I agree. We both believe in that. But the way the RC understands it is what it gives the trouble... Their understanding is so scientific oriented that it makes the EO go... wild hehehe... and we do think it is not proper to talk about it that way...

In my understanding, when you say "energies" you are not meaning God Himself, but rather His graces?

Also, I think it says "no one can see God and live" - but maybe that's just a different translation, I don't know, and maybe I'm wrong.

Grace is given to us as God conduscents to us to teach us to speak to us etc... Everytime we celebrate we "participate" in God's energies. To be able to see God's essence is imposible.. as we will "burn" alive from his presence..Moses saw the back of God it is in the life of Moses by st. Gregory of Nyssa... a good book to read BTW.


The Grace is not just that grace... it is part of God the way He is revealed to us in this world.. So... it is impossible to partake to the totality of God if we are of different nature... and we are for we are humans not God... Gregory Palamas debated with Barlaam... here is the contraversy.. If barlaam could not "defend" it neither I think no one in the RC here could...

On June 10, 1341, the first council was held in the basilica of Haghia Sophia, presided over by Andronicus III. The gathering was indeed a proper council, as notes Meyendorff, and not simply a sitting of the standing Synod of Constantinople: the hearings were public, general judges from the Imperial Court were present, as were the bishops and several archimandrates.[4] However, the council was destined to be quite short, lasting only a single day. Barlaam was allowed to make his accusations against Palamas, but he was soon turned into the accused when the gathered bishops began to question him on specific points of his own theology with which they (and Gregory) disagreed. By the end of the day, Barlaam had realised that the council was not going to decide in his favour, and publicly confessed his error. Palamas freely forgave him.
Andronicus III would die only five days later, in 15 June, 1341. Barlaam seems to have hoped to now make his case again, but soon realised the futility of such an endeavour, and in fact left the Empire for Italy that same year. However, it would now be Gregory Akindynos who would take issue with certain points in Palamas’ theology, as we shall see later. A second council was held in August, this time without the presence of the anti-Palamite supporters of Barlaam, which condemned Akindynos and emphatically upheld the previous council’s support of Palamite theology.
B – The Refutation of Barlaam and its Significance to the Future of the Controversy.
The above historical presentation has been rather sweeping, as the dictates of space mandate. However it is important to note the reaction brought against Barlaam’s attacks on Palamas’ theology. The Calabrian was Gregory’s greatest attacker, from the theological perspective, and his challenges to the notions of physical participation in divine union, prayer, and sanctification demonstrate the most substantial of the doctrinal attacks waged against ‘Palamitism’. It is thus especially noteworthy that the Church as a whole utterly rejected Barlaam’s views from the very first. Meyendorff has written that ‘Palamas’s victory had certainly been complete from June 10th, 1341.’[5] Indeed, no legitimate council would ever decide against the Palamite position in the entire course of the controversy. It has often been claimed that the Palamite position was already complete at this early point in its history, and all that should come over the next twenty years would be its clarification and extrapolation. Indeed, as we shall see in the next section, the majority of conflicts after the councils of 1341 and the Tome which recorded their proceedings, were to come from principally political motivations.

http://www.monachos.net/content/pat...title=Gregory_Palamas:_An_Historical_Overview

I hope you take your time to read this source

it is not that I do not think you do but it would be profitable for you to read it and then come up with questions on the text itself... I gave up going to the post office to answer you and sorry if I sounded abrassive earlier... ... But it would be helpful to consentrate on one subject at the time ... me thinks

 

[Philothei]

Monica you first disbuted this article and I tried to explain the author.. I am not telling you what you believe... I just explained what the article said. I am not accusing but stating the fact about the vicarship.. It is there I do not want to debate either but when you make a comment about an article that an EO writes about RC do you expect me not to explain because I give a slanted view?

I did not intend to show the differences and have not done it either by myself it was the article and I wanted to let you know how the author views the RC... Take it with a grain of salt since you instigated that converstation on the article .. Okie now back to the EO explanation of energry and essence.

 

[Philothei]

not with just the energies,

energies is what God's revelation is in our world the same as "revealed Part of God" type of thing.. Maybe I do not explain it right .... Read the sources and let me now ... I am late for the post office... lol.... but can wait

 

[MoNiCa4316]

energies is what God's revelation is in our world the same as "revealed Part of God" type of thing.. Maybe I do not explain it right .... Read the sources and let me now ... I am late for the post office... lol.... but can wait

oh noo now I'm so confused.. I've always been told before that energies are NOT part of God.. not part of His essence.. ? But rather like His graces.. that's the whole debate between EOC and RCC, cause the Catholics say that this distinction doesn't exist..

I'll read the sources..

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Monica you first disbuted this article and I tried to explain the author.. I am not telling you what you believe... I just explained what the article said. I am not accusing but stating the fact about the vicarship.. It is there I do not want to debate either but when you make a comment about an article that an EO writes about RC do you expect me not to explain because I give a slanted view?

I did not intend to show the differences and have not done it either by myself it was the article and I wanted to let you know how the author views the RC... Take it with a grain of salt since you instigated that converstation on the article .. Okie now back to the EO explanation of energry and essence.

oki sorry I misunderstood then.. I just disagree with the author I guess.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I don't really understand - did Barlaam say that we can partake of God's FULL essence? the totality? cause - I think we'd all disagree there

I also don't understand if it's God's essence that is Him, or His energies ALSO.. or are His energies more like His 'graces'..

I think this whole discussion just goes way over my head.

(I think I'll spend like a week reading about all this..)

 

[Philothei]

Excatly the energies are God .. Palamas brings about the Sun and the rays as an example.. The rays are from the source they are God but they are not his core his essence. They are still part of him though.. It is like feeling the effects of the warmth, light etc. but not seeing the core as you will get blinded if you watch at him too long so the same with the communion we "taste" Him we partake of God... but not His core his essence. The RCC does not think the graces are parts of God? Oh...yeah I think I remember they think that... I will not say... just take a look at that too. If the energies are created though then they are not God or of the same nature of God but Ktismata (creation) ... According to Platonic idea of God though God has "virtues that are ideas" and they are uncreated as they spring from God's essence not created of God... So.. .I would agree with Palamas..

Here is another link ":
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_palamas.aspx

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I thought the whole analogy of the sun was about the Holy Trinity, the sun is the Father, the rays are the Son, and the warmth - Holy Spirit? I agree it's all God..

I'm not exactly sure what the RCC teaches about grace - whether it's created or not.

I'm going to do some reading...about both the Catholic and Orthodox positions on this...

thanks for all your help..

I kind of see now that all this discussion, I don't know if my mind really works that way, I just believe in God and leave theology to theologians.. so I'm not sure if I'll ever really understand this, but - I'll try..