Pope Gelasius and Transubstantiation???

[Not David]

we don't definitively say that the substance changes but the accidents remain or whatever.

I mean, does it really matter?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I mean, does it really matter?

yes

 

[Not David]

yes

Why? What's the problem with that?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why? What's the problem with that?

because it's false, and Christ is Truth

 

[TheLostCoin]

we don't definitively say that the substance changes but the accidents remain or whatever.

I'm curious how one could not say that.

"Accidents" means attributes that don't affect its essence.
"Essence" refers to what the thing essentially is.

Is not the "Essence" of the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ, with the attributes and appearance of Bread and Wine?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm curious how one could not say that.

"Accidents" means attributes that don't affect its essence.
"Essence" refers to what the thing essentially is.

Is not the "Essence" of the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ, with the attributes and appearance of Bread and Wine?

no. while we do say it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, we don't say that the essence of the bread and wine ceases.

 

[TheLostCoin]

no. while we do say it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, we don't say that the essence of the bread and wine ceases.

Is it more "we don't know" or "we definitively believe the essence of the bread and wine remains"

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is it more "we don't know" or "we definitively believe the essence of the bread and wine remains"

it's more that we don't know. however, we also (forgive the crudeness) don't say that after consuming the Chalice and needing to use the bathroom, that Christ comes out.

 

[Not David]

it's more, we don't know. however, we also (forgive the crudeness) don't say that after consuming the Chalice and needing to use the bathroom, that Christ comes out.

I am curious to know what would Roman Catholics say.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am curious to know what would Roman Catholics say.

that was a criticism of the Radical Reformers. if you believe the Eucharist to only essentially be the Body and Blood and no longer the Bread and Wine, then what comes out?

 

[tz620q]

it's more that we don't know. however, we also (forgive the crudeness) don't say that after consuming the Chalice and needing to use the bathroom, that Christ comes out.

Father, I can understand the thought that we can never know God's mind completely and therefore should leave certain complex theological mysteries as pure mystery, less we profane them by over analysis and attempts at bringing down to a human level. I guess, I also see the corollary, that this should not prevent us from raising ourselves up to God's level or as close as we can attain through seeking the truth. In the Catholic mind, we see this seeking as not a destination, since noone will know God's mind perfectly this side of the grave, but as a journey of discovery. I grant you, it is perilous and should not be attempted without guidance and could lead to error; but should the danger prevent us from all attempts?
I think to some degree, the early church has lost it's balance since the Schism. The Catholics define without having the counterbalance of the Orthodox world to guide us spiritually in avoiding error. While, to me, the Orthodox hide from any attempt at explanation achieving a purity of vagueness; but, as you can see, I am obviously biased and seeking your truth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Father, I can understand the thought that we can never know God's mind completely and therefore should leave certain complex theological mysteries as pure mystery, less we profane them by over analysis and attempts at bringing down to a human level. I guess, I also see the corollary, that this should not prevent us from raising ourselves up to God's level or as close as we can attain through seeking the truth. In the Catholic mind, we see this seeking as not a destination, since noone will know God's mind perfectly this side of the grave, but as a journey of discovery. I grant you, it is perilous and should not be attempted without guidance and could lead to error; but should the danger prevent us from all attempts?
I think to some degree, the early church has lost it's balance since the Schism. The Catholics define without having the counterbalance of the Orthodox world to guide us spiritually in avoiding error. While, to me, the Orthodox hide from any attempt at explanation achieving a purity of vagueness; but, as you can see, I am obviously biased and seeking your truth.

it should prevent us, if what we are saying conflicts with what came before. if the early saints say we cannot define x, we should not attempt to define x.

the Church never lost its balance. Orthodoxy is fine at an explanation or clarity (i.e. Palamism), provided it doesn't contradict what came before.

 

[buzuxi02]

This is St. Raphael of Brooklyn explaining the Holy Communion:

The Orthodox Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation without going into any scientific or Roman Catholic explanation. The technical word which She uses for the sublime act of the priest by Christ’s authority to consecrate is “transmuting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). She, as I have said, offers no explanation, but She believes and confesses that Christ, the Son of the living God Who came into the world to save sinners, is of a truth in His “all-pure Body” and “precious Blood” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom) objectively present, and to be worshiped in that Sacrament as He was on earth and is now in risen and glorified majesty in Heaven; and that “the precious and holy and life-giving Body and Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ are imparted” (to each soul that comes to that blessed Sacrament) “Unto the remission of sins, and unto life everlasting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom)...