Orthodoxy's theological tensions and scholarship

[Xeno.of.athens]

Within the Orthodox Tradition, theological tensions have emerged from various perspectives on post-7th Ecumenical Council theological reflections. Unlike Catholicism, Orthodoxy lacks a mechanism within its ecclesiology to resolve these tensions, particularly because holding an Ecumenical council has been impossible since the schisms of 431 AD and 1054 AD. As a Catholic reading the Orthodox Study Bible's notes on the Holy Eucharist, I am struck by the apparent separation from both Catholic and Protestant perspectives. While it is reasonable to distinguish from Protestant symbolic interpretations and spiritual-but-not-physical real presence views, challenging the use of Transubstantiation terminology seems unwarranted. Orthodox scholarly precedent exists for employing such language, indicating that the tradition of transubstantiation is present in Orthodoxy, alongside other Eucharistic traditions that differ from Catholic views. I would like to see these issues addressed and corrected in future editions of the Orthodox Study Bible, along with textual enhancements.

 

[HTacianas]

Within the Orthodox Tradition, theological tensions have emerged from various perspectives on post-7th Ecumenical Council theological reflections. Unlike Catholicism, Orthodoxy lacks a mechanism within its ecclesiology to resolve these tensions, particularly because holding an Ecumenical council has been impossible since the schisms of 431 AD and 1054 AD. As a Catholic reading the Orthodox Study Bible's notes on the Holy Eucharist, I am struck by the apparent separation from both Catholic and Protestant perspectives. While it is reasonable to distinguish from Protestant symbolic interpretations and spiritual-but-not-physical real presence views, challenging the use of Transubstantiation terminology seems unwarranted. Orthodox scholarly precedent exists for employing such language, indicating that the tradition of transubstantiation is present in Orthodoxy, alongside other Eucharistic traditions that differ from Catholic views. I would like to see these issues addressed and corrected in future editions of the Orthodox Study Bible, along with textual enhancements.

You first have to explain precisely what you mean by transubstantiation. Transubstantiation does not describe the change in the bread and wine, but rather is used to describe the manner in which the change occurs.

The term transubstantiation is regularly used improperly. Even the Coptic Church uses the term but they do not believe in transubstantiation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You first have to explain precisely what you mean by transubstantiation. Transubstantiation does not describe the change in the bread and wine, but rather is used to describe the manner in which the change occurs.

The term transubstantiation is regularly used improperly. Even the Coptic Church uses the term but they do not believe in transubstantiation.

There is a theological tension between those who use the word and those who refuse to use it?

I do not claim to know what the Orthodox or the Coptic mean by transubstantiation.

 

[HTacianas]

There is a theological tension between those who use the word and those who refuse to use it?

I do not claim to know what the Orthodox or the Coptic mean by transubstantiation.

The Orthodox Churches refuse to use the term because they do not believe in it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Orthodox Churches refuse to use the term because they do not believe in it.

Yet some orthodox scholars used the term, and a synod also used it.

 

[HTacianas]

Yet some orthodox scholars used the term, and a synod also used it.

As I said before, you will sometimes see it or hear it in Orthodox circles as a generic term used to describe the change in the bread and wine. But transubstantiation has a very specific definition that the Orthodox Churches do not hold to. When it was first used by the Roman Church it had a metaphysical connotation used to describe the change in the bread and wine. They have since backed away from the metaphysics of their description but from the beginning it wasn't that way. It is that metaphysical connotation that the Orthodox Churches do not hold to. The Orthodox Church has always held that the bread and wine do in fact become the body and blood but not through transubstantiation.

 

[jas3]

The Orthodox Church has always held that the bread and wine do in fact become the body and blood but not through transubstantiation.

What, substantially (no pun intended), is the difference between the Orthodox belief and transubstantiation? To me it seems equivalent:

• the bread and wine become the body and blood
• these maintain the appearance of bread and wine
• but in reality they are the body and blood of our Lord

 

[HTacianas]

What, substantially (no pun intended), is the difference between the Orthodox belief and transubstantiation? To me it seems equivalent:

• the bread and wine become the body and blood
• these maintain the appearance of bread and wine
• but in reality they are the body and blood of our Lord

It's a quibble over wording really. All Christian Churches share the same belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood. But the term transubstantiation is a philosophical construct that attempts to explain how it becomes the body and blood. It's the how that leads to the disagreement.

 

[o_mlly]

Within the Orthodox Tradition, theological tensions have emerged from various perspectives on post-7th Ecumenical Council theological reflections. Unlike Catholicism, Orthodoxy lacks a mechanism within its ecclesiology to resolve these tensions ...

“Catholicity” and “oneness” as marks of the true Church have historically been in tension. Both are goods to be promoted as marks of the Church, but neither is an unlimited good. Too much “oneness” can encroach on “catholicity”; too much “catholicity” can render “oneness” to be meaningless.

A third mark of the Church, “holiness,” however, is an unlimited good. While at one time some may think the Church too diverse so as to lack sufficient unity or, at another time, think the Church too unified so as to lack sufficient diversity, no one would ever think at any time that the Church is too holy. Holiness, then, as an unlimited good, becomes, I think, a regulator of the other two. If one accepts this proposition, then the Church should be as unified as holiness requires, and as catholic as holiness allows.

It's good to have a "referee" to reconcile those whose erroneous thinking threaten the Church's oneness.

 

[dzheremi]

The term transubstantiation is regularly used improperly. Even the Coptic Church uses the term but they do not believe in transubstantiation.

This is sadly (but understandably) true, as our people are overwhelmingly not native-English speakers, and have only been established in the English-speaking world as a Church since about 1960 (read: we're much younger than the vast majority of EO people, who are largely westerners to begin with, and even than other OO people, like the Armenians or technically the Syriacs), so it's a matter of first encountering words in English that are used by other communions and not realizing that they have communion-specific understandings that are not the same as ours would be, rather than being 'generic' English terms for things. This is also how you get Coptic liturgies being labeled as "Masses", things that are not icons being called "icons" (though in that case, it's really the other way around: ايقونات already exists in the Arabic language, so we're not really borrowing an English term, but people don't necessarily understand the differences between icons and western religious art, and the attempt at recovering this distinction is sadly I believe not helped by the nearly wholesale embrace of Byzantine and Byzantine-influenced artistic standards, rather than the traditional Coptic iconography as it existed prior to c. 19th century), etc. etc.

Not that I think that this has anything to do with whatever argument a Catholic is trying to have with your communion regarding "post-7th Ecumenical Council theological reflections", as we are much more solidly informed on the fact that there have not been seven ecumenical councils to begin with, but y'know...details. More basic disagreements like this aside, my point is that our inelegant approach to English really has nothing to do with this topic, as I presume the RCs know or at least can be reasonably expected to know exactly what they themselves mean when using vocabulary that is entirely in keeping with one of their own native theological innovations.

 

[dzheremi]

What, substantially (no pun intended), is the difference between the Orthodox belief and transubstantiation? To me it seems equivalent:

• the bread and wine become the body and blood
• these maintain the appearance of bread and wine
• but in reality they are the body and blood of our Lord

Sometimes it is not that the belief itself is wildly different in terms of where it ends up, but the way it is arrived at reflects a mindset that is foreign to the Church that the RCC claims is basically the same as they are in light of both churches' agreement on the fact that water is indeed wet.

If I may:

"The Body and Blood of Emmanuel our God, this is in truth, Amen!"

vs.

"Let us try to analyze this idea. We speak of the conversion of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. What do we mean by conversion? We mean the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being. It is more than mere change. In mere change one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as for example the change of day and night. Night is simply the absence of the light of day. The starting point is positive, while the target, so to speak, is negative. It can be the other way about when we talk of the change of night into day.

Conversion is more than this. It requires two positive extremes. They must be related to each other as thing to thing. For true conversion one thing must run into another thing. It is not just a question of water, for example, changing into steam. Moreover, these two things must be so intimately connected with each other that the last extreme, let us call it the target of the conversion, begins to be only as the first, the starting point, ceases to be. An example of this is the conversion of water into wine at Cana. This is far more radical than the change of water into steam.

A third element is required. There must be something which unites the starting point to the target, one extreme to the other, the thing which is changed to that into which it is changed. At Cana..."

(From the interestingly-titled "Transubstantiation for Beginners", written by one Francis J. Ripley, Catholic Answers magazine, July 1993. I don't want to belabor the point, but the audio version of this article that is hosted at the same link goes on for nearly 30 minutes. What you see above is a tiny excerpt of the full thing.)

 

[jas3]

Sometimes it is not that the belief itself is wildly different in terms of where it ends up, but the way it is arrived at reflects a mindset that is foreign to the Church that the RCC claims is basically the same as they are in light of both churches' agreement on the fact that water is indeed wet.

I don't see how the mindset is significantly different from the deeply technical debates over other controversies that require nuance, like the distinction between monophysitism, miaphysitism, dyophysitism, and Nestorianism, or the arguments over the theology of the filioque. Yes, the Catholic Answers article you quoted is overly convoluted and extremely verbose, but the author is making an argument for transubstantiation as opposed to consubstantiation, which is a very technical distinction in which it's not immediately obvious why one would be correct over the other, or what the implications of each are. Of course, it is much simpler to acclaim that the Eucharist is in truth the body and blood of our Lord, but I'm sure you're also aware that there are much lengthier discussions of the nature of the Eucharist to be found in the Fathers, such as in St. Gregory of Nyssa's Catechetical Discourse.

Really, this argument could just as easily be applied to the debate over the nature or natures of Christ. In the same Catechetical Discourse, St. Gregory writes,

"And if you ask how the divinity is mixed with the human, before this it is time for you to ask what the innate affinity is between flesh and soul. And if the manner in which your soul is united to the body is unknown, do not in any way think that that ought to be within your comprehension. But just as here too we have believed the soul is something different from the body, because the flesh apart from the soul becomes both dead and inactive, and we do not know the manner of union, so too in the other case we admit that the divine nature differs from the mortal and transient in its greater majesty, but we do not have the capacity to perceive the manner of the mingling of the divine with the human.

But that God has come to be in man's nature we cannot doubt, because of the wonders that are recorded, but how we decline to search out, since it is greater than what is accessible to reasoning."

But as we know, later the Church did search out the "manner of the mingling of the divine with the human," and I think you would agree that that was a legitimate point of doctrine to examine in more depth. And while there is still a sense in which the exact relationship between our Lord's divinity and humanity is a mystery even under both Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonian articulations of the union, clearly St. Gregory here refuses even to consider whether these should be spoken of as one incarnate nature or two natures in a hypostatic union.

In short, it's much simpler to say, "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man," but that doesn't make later, more detailed explanations foreign to the mindset of the Church.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't see how the mindset is significantly different from the deeply technical debates over other controversies that require nuance, like the distinction between monophysitism, miaphysitism, dyophysitism, and Nestorianism [...]

Really, this argument could just as easily be applied to the debate over the nature or natures of Christ.

It clearly could be, since you're currently doing that, but I don't think that this is a good analogue for the debate that this thread appears to actually be about. If I'm reading the OP correctly, his issue is that the EO are somehow not recognizing their own history of approving of transubstantiation (whatever that may be). Quite reasonably, we don't have a corresponding history of approving of Chalcedonianism. Even the individual patriarchs or others from centuries later who reexamined the schism and came away with a much more positive evaluation of the original conflict (e.g., St. Nerses Shnorhali) still did not unite with the Chalcedonians, as the terms that the Chalcedonians sought agreement on (quite understandably, from their perspective) required compromises that the Armenians apparently would not make.

Saying anything more than this would definitely violate the neutrality that we enjoy here on TT with regard to the differences between us as communions (in addition to being a non-starter for me personally; there's nothing I could or would want to say about Chalcedon that my fathers have not already said much more wisely), and would anyway drag this thread off topic, so I don't think this is a fruitful discussion to have in this context.

But as we know, later the Church did search out the "manner of the mingling of the divine with the human," and I think you would agree that that was a legitimate point of doctrine to examine in more depth.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Not all manner of searching is equally legitimate to me.

In short, it's much simpler to say, "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man," but that doesn't make later, more detailed explanations foreign to the mindset of the Church.

I actually think it does, depending on what those more detailed explanations are, but okay.

 

[fhansen]

“Catholicity” and “oneness” as marks of the true Church have historically been in tension. Both are goods to be promoted as marks of the Church, but neither is an unlimited good. Too much “oneness” can encroach on “catholicity”; too much “catholicity” can render “oneness” to be meaningless.

A third mark of the Church, “holiness,” however, is an unlimited good. While at one time some may think the Church too diverse so as to lack sufficient unity or, at another time, think the Church too unified so as to lack sufficient diversity, no one would ever think at any time that the Church is too holy. Holiness, then, as an unlimited good, becomes, I think, a regulator of the other two. If one accepts this proposition, then the Church should be as unified as holiness requires, and as catholic as holiness allows.

It's good to have a "referee" to reconcile those whose erroneous thinking threaten the Church's oneness.

I honestly see no reason why catholicity and oneness should be in any conflict whatsoever. There cannot be too much of either.

 

[o_mlly]

I honestly see no reason why catholicity and oneness should be in any conflict whatsoever. There cannot be too much of either.

A religion can continually water down its basic tenets in an attempt to achieve greater catholicity, ie., universality, at the cost of reducing its oneness, ie., a set of unalterable beliefs.

"Oneness" is lacking and cannot be claimed as a mark in any of the 30,000+ non-Catholic Christian religions. Conflicts in beliefs are the cause of much of the divisiveness in Christianity.

"Catholicity" is lacking and cannot be claimed as a mark in any of the Christian sects that identify with one particular place or culture. She is not named after a man (e.g., Lutheranism) or a doctrine (e.g., Presbyterianism) or a place (e.g., Anglicanism); she is called “Catholic”, which means universal.

 

[dzheremi]

The definition of "universal" in the sense of "found everywhere (geographically)" is a later broadening of the original definition, however. The original meaning of "whole" (coming from Greek kata "about" + holos "whole") is why this term is used in the Orthodox Church, as we retain this original definition. Each parish church subsists in the "whole" faith (i.e., is "catholic") by virtue of the bishop's presidency over it and everything it does (e.g., administering the sacraments). It does not need any permission or the bestowal of "Catholic" (as though that were a title) from some foreign power for that to be the case. This is how it can be that in 100 AD, when the local church was likely the only church for hundreds of miles in any direction, the Church was still fully "Catholic". This definition does not change as time goes on and the Church is planted in new places, though of course we thank God that it is. Even in nations with tiny percentages of Christians, the Church is fully Catholic there, just as much as in nations or regions where the Church enjoys greater visibility and patronage. The Church does not become more or less "Catholic" with the changing fortunes it may live through in particular places and times.

We can tell that this is the original meaning because this is how Mor Ignatius used it in his epistles, and his corpus is the earliest record we have of the term being used anywhere by anyone to refer to the Church. Specifically in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, our father writes: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."