transubstantiation? an Orthodox Perspective

lankyknight1990 said:

Good evening eastern Brothers and sisters. I noticed on one of the forum posts that the Eastern church does not believe in transsubstantiation. Just wanted to check something. The East church does believe in Literal Body and blood? Oriental Orthodox certainly do.

Click to expand...

Yes, we do believe in the Body and Blood of Christ, it is just that we make no attempt at explaining how the mystery occurs.

lankyknight1990 said:

But from an Orthodox perspective it their belief wrong? Or is it simply that we do not accept the terminology because its roman? Some things Rome do are still right.

Click to expand...

It is wrong to attempt to take a mystery and define it in such a way that you understand what you think is happening when you really do not know what is happening because it is all really way beyond human comprehension.

lankyknight1990 said:

Is that your opinion or the Orthodox churches perspective. I will give you an example. We have chrisology theology about the Trinity and christ's nature. can anyone understand God? No. But we try with the limited knowledge we have. The RC are just making an attempt to explain it. Do we believe Trans is heresy or just not nessessary to explain?

Click to expand...

I doubt it is heresy, heresy is reserved for things that are so problematic that they just blow a hole through Christian teaching. It is not necessary at all, but it goes beyond that. Rome is wrong in it's attempt to explain away everything it believes. I don't think the scholastic mindset of the Roman Church is heretical, but it certainly is un-Orthodox and deeply problematic.

lankyknight1990 said:

One thing i was taught when I first came to the Orthodox faith was that in Orthodoxy we dont try to explain everything. And that makes things a thousand times more easier. However should transsubstantiation theology be openly attacked by orthodox christian? I say no. cause we do not know if its right or wrong.

Click to expand...

Transsubstantiation per se is not heretical. However, the Scholastic mindset that dominates Roman Catholic theology and is pretty much the result of the work of Thomas Aquinas is borderline heretical. Aquinas sought to explain everything and left no room for faith in his work. There is a very serious problem with this approach from the Orthodox point of view.

lankyknight1990 said:

Is that your opinion or the Orthodox churches perspective. I will give you an example. We have chrisology theology about the Trinity and christ's nature. can anyone understand God? No. But we try with the limited knowledge we have. The RC are just making an attempt to explain it. Do we believe Trans is heresy or just not nessessary to explain?

Click to expand...

Christ is Risen!!!

Yes, we do have Christology and Theology, but there is a point where we do not go beyond. One way I have heard it is that we do know that Christ is both God and Man, but we don't try to go into cellular/spiritual level of explanation for something we know is true, but is also a mystery. We know that the bread and wine become the body of Christ. We just don't feel there needs to be an explanation of what is exactly is the bread when it is the body or becomes the body and likewise with the wine. We know the God is communion of three persons with the Son begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, but we don't go into essence of how this works, because this is a mystery. I hope this helps

Our mindsets are different, but not always as much as some hold. Having read much Aquinas I am not sure he does try to explain everything, that is something some of his followers tend to do; great minds often attract followers who do not do justice to the subtlety of their thought, and Aquinas is no exception.

That said, we dissent from the idea that one can explain something which actually needs no explanation. Some more modern Catholic writers such as Dom Aidan Nichols have an acute understanding of Orthodox theology which they use to illuminate their own tradition; check out his writings.

Christ is Risen!

peace,

Anglian

lankyknight1990 said:

One thing i was taught when I first came to the Orthodox faith was that in Orthodoxy we dont try to explain everything. And that makes things a thousand times more easier. However should transsubstantiation theology be openly attacked by orthodox christian? I say no. cause we do not know if its right or wrong.

Click to expand...

This is what I feel is the difference. The Orthodox do not formulate Theological statements about God until there is a dire need for it. Like you say, we would rather keep silent about the ineffable mystery that is God. However, when teachings come along that are heresy through and through, we, as a church, are called to carve out the theological distinctions needed to keep us in the Truth.

Now, this is a difference between Roman and Orthodox Theology. Rome innovates without that dire need, without a real call to action theologically. It seems somewhat ad hoc, creating and defining theology without a heresy that it is standing in juxtaposition to. So, The Orthodox Church only speaks of God when it must to preserve the Truth, but Rome doesn't follow this pattern. It's as if God is a project that is constantly being researched on, instead of the ineffable mystery that He is. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Disclaimer: If there is any harshness in this post that is read into, it was not intended. I think this discussion is taking a great turn and should be explored.