The Eucharist: True differences between Catholics and Orthodox???

dzheremi · Sep 11, 2017

As far as I've understood it anyway, there is a sense in which it is correct to say that Transubstantiation does not say more about "how" the change happens than that it is by the Holy Spirit. The problem from where I'm sitting is that this is not the only sense that the RCC talks about "how" the Eucharist is. By talking about its accidents and substance as things, the RCC compartmentalizes and systematizes its communicants' way of being able to talk and think about the Eucharist, where the focus then becomes on the Eucharist as a physical object. (Metaphysically, how is the bread still bread or the wine still wine but also the body and blood of Christ? This is not necessarily an answer to the mechanism by which it happens, but is still a different level of discussion on the matter than is found in or allowable elsewhere.)

That is not the only sense in which there is this divide which sorta 'fetishizes' whatever it is we're talking about as a thing, either. The Sacred Heart devotion does similarly, I would say, by focusing the worshiper upon His heart as an object of veneration, rather than the complete person of Christ our Lord (and, yes, I know that this thread is not about that and that the RCC teaches that this is symbolic of His love and so on). Even having a category of "mystics", as the RCC does, as somehow separated from other saints seems strange to me. The Orthodox faith is much more holistic in this sense, you could say.

Sorry to go slightly off topic for a paragraph there, but my only point is that personally -- as a former RC who never engaged in any of this stuff, actually -- I see the RC approach to the Eucharist as being one manifestation of a larger and more all-encompassing difference between the RCC and others. An ontological difference, you could say, following HAH Bartholomew and surely others.

Erose · Sep 11, 2017

All4Christ said:
Do you consider St Thomas Aquinas to be authoritative?

Influential yes; authoritative, no. Individual Saints taken by themselves are not considered authoritative in their own right, I.e. Doctrine is not developed based upon the writings of the Saints. I think that the Saints would be considered more as witnesses to the Deposit of Faith, and not inventors of the Deposit of Faith.

All4Christ said:
Does the RCC agree with all his writings? He introduced a lot more philosophy and explanation about the Eucharist (especially with transubstantiation) than the catechism or even the statement produced by Trent.

I would say that St. Thomas was a man, and that even he would have made mistakes in his teachings. We do not consider his writings infallible, albeit some in the school of scholasticism may very well come close to believing that, even though they would deny it openly.

Anyway, a official Catechism and the Council of Trent would be the documents that we would consider Authoritative.

All4Christ said:
I'm not trying to go off topic, but the philosophical explanations from the church fathers of the Catholic Church seems to be relevant to the teaching / understanding of members of the RCC.

I would think it depends upon who you talk to. I have not studied St. Thomas' writings; I'm mostly a ECF reader myself. I have read some of them, but not enough to comment.

Anyway, when you see the Church make a declarative statement on a doctrine, she doesn't go into extensive detail normally. The declarative statement is usually short and sweet, and straight to the point. I do not think this has changed over the last 2000 years.

Erose · Sep 12, 2017

dzheremi said:
As far as I've understood it anyway, there is a sense in which it is correct to say that Transubstantiation does not say more about "how" the change happens than that it is by the Holy Spirit. The problem from where I'm sitting is that this is not the only sense that the RCC talks about "how" the Eucharist is. By talking about its accidents and substance as things, the RCC compartmentalizes and systematizes its communicants' way of being able to talk and think about the Eucharist, where the focus then becomes on the Eucharist as a physical object. (Metaphysically, how is the bread still bread or the wine still wine but also the body and blood of Christ? This is not necessarily an answer to the mechanism by which it happens, but is still a different level of discussion on the matter than is found in or allowable elsewhere.)

I disagree. When the CC speaks of accidents and substance, it is affirming what we see, feel, touch and taste, i.e. accidents; and what we consume and commune with (substance) in the Eucharist. The early Church Fathers spoke of this quite frequently. If for some reason, Copts are not allowed to speak of what they actually physically experience (accidents) and what they spiritually experience (substance)...then I'm not sure what else to say on the matter.

dzheremi said:
Sorry to go slightly off topic for a paragraph there, but my only point is that personally -- as a former RC who never engaged in any of this stuff, actually -- I see the RC approach to the Eucharist as being one manifestation of a larger and more all-encompassing difference between the RCC and others. An ontological difference, you could say, following HAH Bartholomew and surely others.

Okay, so we worship Christ in the Eucharist; we recognize that our God is not just spiritually present, but substantially present in our Churches because of the Eucharist that we keep in our Tabernacles, and that because we believe the Eucharist is Christ, we worship Him in it. Is this the ontological difference speak of?

dzheremi · Sep 12, 2017

Erose said:
I disagree. When the CC speaks of accidents and substance, it is affirming what we see, feel, touch and taste i.e. accidents; and what we consume and commune with (substance) in the Eucharist.

I guess I should say here that I don't really see that there's much of a difference in what we affirm at this level -- that it is the true body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How we do so is clearly different, however.

The early Church Fathers spoke of this quite frequently.

Never in the way that the RCC does, however.

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ"

-- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture XXII

"I am the bread of life." Now He proceedeth to commit unto them mysteries. And first He discourseth of His Godhead, saying, "I am the bread of life." For this is not spoken of His Body, (concerning that He saith towards the end, "And the bread which I shall give is My flesh,") but at present it referreth to His Godhead. For That, through God the Word, is Bread, as this bread also, through the Spirit descending on it, is made Heavenly Bread.

-- St. Chrysostom, Homily XLV on John (emphasis added)

The spiritual Bread, as the Giver of it, quickens the spiritual spiritually, and he that receives it carnally, receives it rashly to no profit. This Bread of grace let the spirit receive discerningly, as the medicine of Life. If the dead sacrifices in the name of devils were offered, yea eaten, not without a mystery; at the holy thing of the offering, how much more does it behoove us that this mystery be circumspectly administered by us. He that eateth of the sacrifice in the name of devils, becomes devilish without all contradiction. He that eateth the Heavenly Bread, becomes Heavenly without doubt!

-- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymn three from Nineteen Hmyns on the Nativity of Christ (emphasis added)

Etc., etc.

If for some reason, Copts are not allowed to speak of what they actually physically experience (accidents) and what they spiritually experience (substance)...then I'm not sure what else to say on the matter.

Eh...being 'not allowed' is not a matter of having some banned list of topics or something; it's more a matter of not speaking in that way because that's not our way of speaking. You can tell where we are on this topic or any topic from our prayers, as have already been shared. Lex orandi, lex credendi and all that.

(So it's kind of patronizing to be told that we're physically and spiritually experiencing things according to your Western/Latin ideas of what it is to partake of the Eucharist, due to your belief that "we mean the same thing" or whatever. How could you possibly know that? You are not a Coptic Orthodox person, or Greek Orthodox, or whatever. I didn't leave the RCC very much on purpose only to have its people tell me what I'm doing in my own Church and faith according to their mania for philosophical compartmentalizing of the faith. We don't have anything like that, so far as I've seen.)

Okay, so we worship Christ in the Eucharist; we recognize that our God is not just spiritually present, but substantially present in our Churches because of the Eucharist that we keep in our Tabernacles, and that because we believe the Eucharist is Christ, we worship Him in it. Is this the ontological difference speak of?

The ontological difference is in everything that concerns the living of the faith by which you have mistaken your way of doing things as being the way. To not countenance any idea of ontological difference between the different traditions is essentially to say that it is all window dressing and maybe these people like this terminology while others like that. I don't believe this to be the case, as your theology is not simply a 'more developed' version of mine or whatever -- it's different at the level of how you approach being a Christian. That's why HAH Bartholomew can claim, quite plausibly in my opinion, that this is an ontological difference, as ontology deals with the nature of being. Your way of being a Christian and the Greek Orthodox way or the Coptic Orthodox way or the Syriac Orthodox way or whatever are quite simply not the same. They are different, and hence in a thread about differences between Rome and all others who are not her children, this bears repeating.

Do you not wonder why not even one of your compatriots of the Eastern or Oriental Catholic churches ever had an organic practice of 'adoration' as its own separate practice until it was introduced by the Romans themselves as a Latinization? Or do you really think that Mor Maroun was in the mountains of Syria with a big monstrance in his cave? It's a bit unbelievable. The spirituality is transparently not the same.

Erose · Sep 12, 2017

dzheremi said:
I guess I should say here that I don't really see that there's much of a difference in what we affirm at this level -- that it is the true body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How we do so is clearly different, however.

I agree to a point.

dzheremi said:
Never in the way that the RCC does, however.

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ"

-- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture XXII

"I am the bread of life." Now He proceedeth to commit unto them mysteries. And first He discourseth of His Godhead, saying, "I am the bread of life." For this is not spoken of His Body, (concerning that He saith towards the end, "And the bread which I shall give is My flesh,") but at present it referreth to His Godhead. For That, through God the Word, is Bread, as this bread also, through the Spirit descending on it, is made Heavenly Bread.

-- St. Chrysostom, Homily XLV on John (emphasis added)

The spiritual Bread, as the Giver of it, quickens the spiritual spiritually, and he that receives it carnally, receives it rashly to no profit. This Bread of grace let the spirit receive discerningly, as the medicine of Life. If the dead sacrifices in the name of devils were offered, yea eaten, not without a mystery; at the holy thing of the offering, how much more does it behoove us that this mystery be circumspectly administered by us. He that eateth of the sacrifice in the name of devils, becomes devilish without all contradiction. He that eateth the Heavenly Bread, becomes Heavenly without doubt!

-- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymn three from Nineteen Hmyns on the Nativity of Christ (emphasis added)

Etc., etc.

Do you mean like this:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein--to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice. (22nd Session of Trent, Intro.)

The holy Synod notices, in the next place, that it has been enjoined by the Church on priests, to mix water with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice; as well because it is believed that Christ the Lord did this, as also because from His side there came out blood and water; the memory of which mystery is renewed by this commixture; and, whereas in the apocalypse of blessed John, the peoples are called waters, the union of that faithful people with Christ their head is hereby represented. (22nd Session of Trent, Ch 7)

What great care is to be taken, that the sacred and holy sacrifice of the mass be celebrated with all religious service and veneration, each one may easily imagine, who considers, that, in holy writ, he is called accursed, who doth the work of God negligently; and if we must needs confess, that no other work can be performed by the faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery itself, wherein that life-giving victim, by which we were reconciled to the Father, is daily immolated on the altar by priests, it is also sufficiently clear, that all industry and diligence is to be applied to this end, that it be performed with the greatest possible inward cleanness and purity of heart, and outward show of devotion and piety. (22nd Session of Trent, Final Decree)

Even at Vatican II the word "mystery" was used 6 times in the document on the Sacred Liturgy Chapter II on the MYSTERY of the Eucharist.

So yes the Catholic Church and the Church Fathers are locked in step.

dzheremi said:
(So it's kind of patronizing to be told that we're physically and spiritually experiencing things according to your Western/Latin ideas of what it is to partake of the Eucharist, due to your belief that "we mean the same thing" or whatever. How could you possibly know that? You are not a Coptic Orthodox person, or Greek Orthodox, or whatever. I didn't leave the RCC very much on purpose only to have its people tell me what I'm doing in my own Church and faith according to their mania for philosophical compartmentalizing of the faith. We don't have anything like that, so far as I've seen.)

There has not been one post in this entire thread were I even attempted to claim that I know what the Coptic or Greek Churches teach over the members of said Churches. You can go back and look, and you will not find me making any types of claims. I have seen claims about what I believe, or are suppose to believe, but I have not done the same. The only thing I did in one single post was to post from Orthodox Sources, what those sources said; but that is it and only it.

I don't remember or recall others doing the same, but that could be the case. But to be honest, I work very hard in not assuming what others believe. I may go to whatever official documents I may find published by their churches if I'm not getting much clarity, but that is it.

Concerning what the Coptic Church or the Greek Church actually teaches I'm fairly ignorant of; and that is why I make these threads occasionally.

dzheremi said:
The ontological difference is in everything that concerns the living of the faith by which you have mistaken your way of doing things as being the way. To not countenance any idea of ontological difference between the different traditions is essentially to say that it is all window dressing and maybe these people like this terminology while others like that. I don't believe this to be the case, as your theology is not simply a 'more developed' version of mine or whatever -- it's different at the level of how you approach being a Christian. That's why HAH Bartholomew can claim, quite plausibly in my opinion, that this is an ontological difference, as ontology deals with the nature of being. Your way of being a Christian and the Greek Orthodox way or the Coptic Orthodox way or the Syriac Orthodox way or whatever are quite simply not the same. They are different, and hence in a thread about differences between Rome and all others who are not her children, this bears repeating.

You know here is the thing here. For me, this should not be the reason why we are against each other. The strength of the Catholic Church back in the early centuries was this very fact. Even from the beginning, there were, as you say, differences between the Patriarchates. Its always been this way. Why? Because our Patriarchates have grew in different cultures, different ways of thinking, different emphasis.

Today, even in the Roman Catholic Church, not including the Eastern Catholic Churches, you can see the same thing. The RCC in Africa is different than the RCC in North American, which is different than the RCC in Europe, which is different from the RCC in South America, which is different from the RCC in China, etc., etc., etc. In all reality it is our strength.

The fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, there are differences either growing and/or have grown between the Coptic Church in Egypt and lets say the Coptic Church in America. It is the nature of the Church living in different cultures. Think about how quickly the these differences occurred in the Church 2000 years ago, and it grew within the Roman Empire! How many centuries, if it takes centuries, will the differences between the Coptic Church in Egypt and the CC in America become so different as to threaten schism? Especially after the bulk of the migrants from the old country die and are replaced by their westernized children. Interesting thing to think about though.

Targaryen · Sep 12, 2017

I don't want to quote the entire post, but I'll say to Erose's point. Yes, the church did grow up in the Roman Empire, The Roman Empire that one half was Latinized and the other half Hellenized. There were always differences in the Empire, right down to lingua franca. So it makes sense,even as a passerby that Eat and West would view things through slightly differing lenses.

thecolorsblend · Sep 12, 2017

It looks like the non-Catholic objection here is not affixing a name to it. But a label which exists precisely to underscore the mystery of the Eucharist is apparently too much for some.

Unity between our Churches won't be achieved or lost based on anything said in this forum. But assuming this discussion is in any way a macrocosm of the official discussions by our leaders (and have mercy if they are!), I can't help but wondering if some Vatican diplomat hasn't muttered "Your Church could've participated in refining this teaching if not for the schism" under his breath at least once or twice. Then again, it's probably error on my part to project my exasperation onto others.

Targaryen · Sep 12, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
It looks like the non-Catholic objection here is not affixing a name to it. But a label which exists precisely to underscore the mystery of the Eucharist is apparently too much for some.

Unity between our Churches won't be achieved or lost based on anything said in this forum. But assuming this discussion is in any way a macrocosm of the official discussions by our leaders (and have mercy if they are!), I can't help but wondering if some Vatican diplomat hasn't muttered "Your Church could've participated in refining this teaching if not for the schism" under his breath at least once or twice. Then again, it's probably error on my part to project my exasperation onto others.

I think that could be said of Anglicans as much as it can be said of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox churches though. Anglicans by and large don't put a name to how the elements become the Body and Blood of our Savior either.

As for the refining the teaching, perhaps. But then, as we know, us Protestants then tried to further define it and well...almost everything else.

Erose · Sep 12, 2017

Targaryen said:
I don't want to quote the entire post, but I'll say to Erose's point. Yes, the church did grow up in the Roman Empire, The Roman Empire that one half was Latinized and the other half Hellenized. There were always differences in the Empire, right down to lingua franca. So it makes sense,even as a passerby that Eat and West would view things through slightly differing lenses.

Its more complicated than that really. Antioch and Constantinople were close enough to each other in that the 't'raditions and theology of Antioch very much influenced Constantinople (we must remember that Constantinople was not originally a Patriarchate), but let us not forget Alexandria. So you really had within the Empire of Rome three primary Patriarchates that developed their own traditions and theological emphasis's. This does not include the Churches that grew outside the Roman Empire. It would have been interesting to see how the original Patriarchate of Jerusalem would have affected the situation if it would have survived.

dzheremi · Sep 13, 2017

Erose said:
Do you mean like this

No, I mean people like the Fathers who I actually quoted. Common fathers (e.g., shared by OO/EO/RC alike), not a council that is not recognized by anyone you are talking to.
Besides, the point is not the presence of the word mystery (and here I will acknowledge that my way of presenting the information might have made it seem like that is the point, which is my fault). The point is actually that the early Church Fathers do not support the admittedly-later philosophical bent of the RCC but by the insistence that they do, as they do not talk about substance and accidents as you do, but about mystery.

So yes the Catholic Church and the Church Fathers are locked in step.

I respect the fact that this is sincerely how you and your Church see it, but I do not agree when it comes to this particular topic.

There has not been one post in this entire thread were I even attempted to claim that I know what the Coptic or Greek Churches teach over the members of said Churches.

You did just write in post 323 that what the Coptic Orthodox people experience physically in partaking of the Eucharist is its accidents, while what we partake in spiritually is its substance. Yet we do not say that. That's the entire point. You are pushing your philosophical divisions of the Eucharist into this or that on a people and a Church Who do not have this way of looking at things.

This is the difference in a lot of attempts at Orthodox/RC dialogue: As the RC side is so committed to their idea that there are not really substantial differences between the RCC and the Orthodox Church, when you have Orthodox people telling you straight up "No, we don't have XYZ", it still seems appropriate to explain how they/we actually do have XYZ, and if we could only get straight what we teach and believe, and recognize in the early fathers the kind of support for these doctrines that the RCC sees in them, we'd "understand things properly" and then we could all come together and so forth.

Meanwhile, the Orthodox (at least the ones around me) say "Here are our prayers; these are what we believe and affirm and you will not find in them the kinds of things that the Latins are claiming is the faith of the universal Church. Just read them and see."

To me the difference between the two is as night and day, and the assumptions are primarily on the RC side, as I do not know anyone among the Orthodox -- whether of the EO or of my own Church -- who says that we have the same faith as the RCC.

You know here is the thing here. For me, this should not be the reason why we are against each other.

Pardon? I'm sorry, I did not mean to give off the impression that I am against you or against Roman Catholics as a group. I simply do not see anything fruitful coming from the RC approach which does not seem to admit differences that are very clear to everyone you're talking to or about. Again, the thread is "true differences", not similarities. If the people you're talking to say that this is a difference, why is that not enough to show that there are such differences?

The strength of the Catholic Church back in the early centuries was this very fact. Even from the beginning, there were, as you say, ontological differences between the Patriarchates. Its always been this way. Why? Because our Patriarchates have grew in different cultures, different ways of thinking, different emphasis.

This is not what ontological difference means in this context. Obviously Russians are not Greeks and Arabs are not Romanians, just as Copts are not Syriacs and Ethiopians are not Armenians. So it not a matter of different cultures, as different cultures all exist alongside each other in all of the different communions. Ontological difference in terms of the ways of being Christian has to do with the faith proclaimed, such that if that faith is the same, the cultures may vary as any do. Here I will quote one of the letters of HH Severus of Antioch, the famous Syriac Orthodox patriarch (512-538), who writes concerning the Egyptians as follows:

"..you must not recognize any distinction between those who are banished from the East, and made illustrious by the combat of confessorship, and the saintly bishops in Egypt, and that you must reckon that to be one church which is compacted together in the Orthodox faith, and confession and communion, and is most pure and serene through the non-association with the heretics..."

And from the Egyptian side, from an oration of HH Pope Anastasius (605-616) as recorded in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, we read:

"At this hour, O my friends, we must take the harp of David, and sing with the voice of the Psalm, saying 'Mercy and the truth have met together' (Ps. 85:10). Athanasius and Anastasius have kissed one another. The truth has appeared from the land of Egypt, and righteousness has arisen from the East. Egypt and Syria have become one in doctrine; Alexandria and Antioch have become one Church, one virgin-bride of one pure and chaste bridegroom, who is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, the Word of the Father."

This is what sustains communion (or reestablishes it in the case of any dispute or schism, as seems to have been going on at the time that HH Pope Anastasius gave his oration). It's not a matter of culture. It's a matter of mutual recognition of the faith.

Today, even in the Roman Catholic Church, not including the Eastern Catholic Churches, you can see the same thing. The RCC in Africa is "ontologically" different than the RCC in North American, which is "ontologically" different than the RCC in Europe, which is different from the RCC in South America, which is different from the RCC in China, etc., etc., etc. In all reality it is our strength.

See above. If ontological differences extended to the level you are talking about, then presumably nobody could be in communion with anyone else, as Russians and Arabs don't speak the same language, and Eritreans and Copts don't eat the same food or whatever. That doesn't matter. The faith is what matters. Obviously RC churches the world over share the same faith, or at least enough of the same faith to mutually recognize each other as being all the same communion.

The fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, there are ontological differences either growing and/or have grown between the Coptic Church in Egypt and lets say the Coptic Church in America.

I don't mean this as any kind of comment on you personally, but it's not clear to me that you understand what is meant by ontology. Obviously the Coptic Orthodox Church in America is in America and that in Egypt is in Egypt (and in Bolivia in Boiivia, and so on). We have the same faith regardless, however. I can't count the number of times I have received from the hand of a priest whose first language is clearly not English (and a fair number who spoke no English at all, who were visiting from Egypt for Holy Week), and even in those cases -- or perhaps especially in those cases -- the unity of faith has been clear to me entirely through the work of the liturgy itself, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Who descends among the gathered worshipers to sanctify and transform the oblations. It is absolutely the same faith and the same Lord proclaimed before and by all people whether we affirm the holy body and precious blood in this language or that one or another.

It is the nature of the Church living in different cultures. Think about how quickly the these differences occurred in the Church 2000 years ago, and it grew within the Roman Empire!

Again, this is not the point. If the Latins were Orthodox in faith, it would not matter that they are Latins, as there were centuries of Latin-speaking or culturally Latin (in terms of eccelsiastical affiliation, as is the case with the native Berber Christians of North Africa) Orthodox fathers, including Popes of Rome, prior to Rome's derailment in c. 451 or c. 1054, depending on who you ask. No doubt those loyal to other visions of Christianity would and probably do say the same regarding my own Church and communion.

dzheremi · Sep 13, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
I can't help but wondering if some Vatican diplomat hasn't muttered "Your Church could've participated in refining this teaching if not for the schism" under his breath at least once or twice.

To which the hypothetical Orthodox bishop or other representative could reply, "We have nothing to refine, only to proclaim and protect from the grievous error of those who think that the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His apostles and disciples needs refining."

thecolorsblend · Sep 13, 2017

dzheremi said:
To which the hypothetical Orthodox bishop or other representative could reply, "We have nothing to refine, only to proclaim and protect from the grievous error of those who think that the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His apostles and disciples needs refining."

Oh that's right, I forgot your church didn't have to contend with challenges and heresies from Luther and his Protestant minions, silly me.

All4Christ · Sep 13, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
Oh that's right, I forgot your church didn't have to contend with challenges and heresies from Luther and his Protestant minions, silly me.

Honestly, I don't understand your attitude here. We can have friendly conversations, even when we disagree. Sarcastic comments are not needed and are not beneficial to conversations like this. Stereotyping all Orthodox Christians also is not helpful. I'd would encourage everyone to consider this - for all of us - Catholic, Orthodox and all others.

It seems like you feel we are attacking you personally. I for one am not trying to do that - and I don't think most others here would try to do that either.

I understand the struggles the Catholic Church experienced, just as we have had struggles with Islamic invasions, communism, etc. It does influence us - and certainly we need to deal with situations we encounter, but that doesn't mean we would be identical in what we do.

dzheremi · Sep 13, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
Oh that's right, I forgot your church didn't have to contend with challenges and heresies from Luther and his Protestant minions, silly me.

The fact that we very much did face such challenges (Arius, Nestorius, Islam, etc.) and yet did not do so by going beyond what is within our right to expound upon ought to be instructive, but okay. If that's how you feel, don't let me stop you from saying so.

Targaryen · Sep 13, 2017

Maybe you'll feel better picking on the "protestant" trying to follow the thread respectfully,if you have a need to rip into people that is?

*sighs*

Erose · Sep 13, 2017

dzheremi said:
No, I mean people like the Fathers who I actually quoted. Common fathers (e.g., shared by OO/EO/RC alike), not a council that is not recognized by anyone you are talking to.
Besides, the point is not the presence of the word mystery (and here I will acknowledge that my way of presenting the information might have made it seem like that is the point, which is my fault). The point is actually that the early Church Fathers do not support the admittedly-later philosophical bent of the RCC but by the insistence that they do, as they do not talk about substance and accidents as you do, but about mystery.

I respect the fact that this is sincerely how you and your Church see it, but I do not agree when it comes to this particular topic.

No the Fathers for the most part used Platonic language, because for whatever reason Aristotelian philosophy was lost during that time. Look if you do not think that the ECFs did not have a philosophical bent, and didn't frequently use philosophical language and concepts to explain the Faith...well you haven't read many of them is all I can say. Many of these men are studied in philosophy classes believe it or not, and I'm not speaking of philosophy of religion class only.

dzheremi said:
You did just write in post 323 that what the Coptic Orthodox people experience physically in partaking of the Eucharist is its accidents, while what we partake in spiritually is its substance. Yet we do not say that. That's the entire point. You are pushing your philosophical divisions of the Eucharist into this or that on a people and a Church Who do not have this way of looking at things.

All I can do here is ask you two simple questions: 1) What do you experience physically when you receive the Eucharist? i.e. what do you see, taste, touch? 2) What do you experience spiritually?

dzheremi said:
Meanwhile, the Orthodox (at least the ones around me) say "Here are our prayers; these are what we believe and affirm and you will not find in them the kinds of things that the Latins are claiming is the faith of the universal Church. Just read them and see."

To me the difference between the two is as night and day, and the assumptions are primarily on the RC side, as I do not know anyone among the Orthodox -- whether of the EO or of my own Church -- who says that we have the same faith as the RCC.

I have read them, and I don't see anything in them that contradicts. If I did, then hey case closed. So I read the prayers that you posted, and I have read some Orthodox documents on line, and I haven't seen anything that contradicts.

dzheremi said:
Pardon? I'm sorry, I did not mean to give off the impression that I am against you or against Roman Catholics as a group. I simply do not see anything fruitful coming from the RC approach which does not seem to admit differences that are very clear to everyone you're talking to or about. Again, the thread is "true differences", not similarities. If the people you're talking to say that this is a difference, why is that not enough to show that there are such differences?

Because usually those differences start off with something that isn't true on the other side. This is the point of the thread, to try to clear away the rubbish and misinformation, and figure out among thinking adults what are and are not the differences in teaching.

dzheremi said:
This is not what ontological difference means in this context. Obviously Russians are not Greeks and Arabs are not Romanians, just as Copts are not Syriacs and Ethiopians are not Armenians. So it not a matter of different cultures, as different cultures all exist alongside each other in all of the different communions. Ontological difference in terms of the ways of being Christian has to do with the faith proclaimed, such that if that faith is the same, the cultures may vary as any do. Here I will quote one of the letters of HH Severus of Antioch, the famous Syriac Orthodox patriarch (512-538), who writes concerning the Egyptians as follows:

"..you must not recognize any distinction between those who are banished from the East, and made illustrious by the combat of confessorship, and the saintly bishops in Egypt, and that you must reckon that to be one church which is compacted together in the Orthodox faith, and confession and communion, and is most pure and serene through the non-association with the heretics..."

And from the Egyptian side, from an oration of HH Pope Anastasius (605-616) as recorded in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, we read:

"At this hour, O my friends, we must take the harp of David, and sing with the voice of the Psalm, saying 'Mercy and the truth have met together' (Ps. 85:10). Athanasius and Anastasius have kissed one another. The truth has appeared from the land of Egypt, and righteousness has arisen from the East. Egypt and Syria have become one in doctrine; Alexandria and Antioch have become one Church, one virgin-bride of one pure and chaste bridegroom, who is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, the Word of the Father."

This is what sustains communion (or reestablishes it in the case of any dispute or schism, as seems to have been going on at the time that HH Pope Anastasius gave his oration). It's not a matter of culture. It's a matter of mutual recognition of the faith.

See above. If ontological differences extended to the level you are talking about, then presumably nobody could be in communion with anyone else, as Russians and Arabs don't speak the same language, and Eritreans and Copts don't eat the same food or whatever. That doesn't matter. The faith is what matters. Obviously RC churches the world over share the same faith, or at least enough of the same faith to mutually recognize each other as being all the same communion.

I don't mean this as any kind of comment on you personally, but it's not clear to me that you understand what is meant by ontology. Obviously the Coptic Orthodox Church in America is in America and that in Egypt is in Egypt (and in Bolivia in Boiivia, and so on). We have the same faith regardless, however. I can't count the number of times I have received from the hand of a priest whose first language is clearly not English (and a fair number who spoke no English at all, who were visiting from Egypt for Holy Week), and even in those cases -- or perhaps especially in those cases -- the unity of faith has been clear to me entirely through the work of the liturgy itself, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Who descends among the gathered worshipers to sanctify and transform the oblations. It is absolutely the same faith and the same Lord proclaimed before and by all people whether we affirm the holy body and precious blood in this language or that one or another.

Again, this is not the point. If the Latins were Orthodox in faith, it would not matter that they are Latins, as there were centuries of Latin-speaking or culturally Latin (in terms of eccelsiastical affiliation, as is the case with the native Berber Christians of North Africa) Orthodox fathers, including Popes of Rome, prior to Rome's derailment in c. 451 or c. 1054, depending on who you ask. No doubt those loyal to other visions of Christianity would and probably do say the same regarding my own Church and communion.

I won't comment on this fully as it is beyond the scope of this thread; and would make an interesting separate thread altogether. I will make only one counter point here. I think that the term "ontologically different" as being misused here. And I do find it interesting that this term which is used frequently is a modern philosophical term, that by its very definition would not apply in the case of multiple groups of Christians in Schism. Do I think that there are differences between Copts and Romans? You bet yea; but there isn't going to be two different heavens to hold us, and the relationship we will have with God isn't going to be fundamentally different either. So unless you are assuming that only Copts and those "ontologically similar" are going to make it to heaven; then this term is completely misappropriated to explain the differences between the two Patriarchates.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

dzheremi · Sep 13, 2017

Erose said:
No the Fathers for the most part used Platonic language, because for whatever reason Aristotelian philosophy was lost during that time. Look if you do not think that the ECFs did not have a philosophical bent, and didn't frequently use philosophical language and concepts to explain the Faith...well you haven't read many of them is all I can say. Many of these men are studied in philosophy classes believe it or not, and I'm not speaking of philosophy of religion class only.

Yes. My own baptismal saint, St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, the father of theology in the Coptic language, was given a classical Greek (philosophical) education, as is common of many of the early Egyptian saints. The School of Alexandria taught not only theology, but also classical philosophy, as it was modeled on the pre-Christian Mouseion that flourished in that city before Christianity. To quote a Church source on the school:

"It would have been a grave error to have confined the School's activities to theology. Its teaching was encyclopedic; first presenting the whole series of profane sciences, and then rising to moral and religious philosophy, and finally to Christian theology, as set forth in the form of commentaries on the sacred books. This encyclopedic conception of teaching was an Alexandrian tradition, for it was also found in Alexandrian pagan and Jewish schools."

So once again, the issue is not philosophy itself -- and I don't believe either I nor any other poster in this thread has claimed that the Fathers did not have philosophical stances or views (I don't even know how that would be possible). Rather, philosophy must be given its proper place and not allowed to extend beyond the boundaries of what we can know or plausibly claim, in line with our faith. It seems to outsiders that the RC draws that 'line' much more liberally than the EO or OO do (I don't know enough about Anglicans and the like to say, though I get the sense from the Anglican posters in this thread that they share some of the EO and OO reticence to pry too much into certain matters).

All I can do here is ask you two simple questions: 1) What do you experience physically when you receive the Eucharist? i.e. what do you see, taste, touch? 2) What do you experience spiritually?

Is it too much to say that these questions are irrelevant? I don't mean to brush you off as though they don't have their place within the context in which the RCC invented the doctrine of transubstantiation, but that is not our context in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Rather, we affirm, as per our prayers, that what we receive is the holy body and precious blood of our Lord, God, and Savior, Jesus Christ. We do not say "we experience this physically, and that spiritually."

I have read them, and I don't see anything in them that contradicts. If I did, then hey case closed. So I read the prayers that you posted, and I have read some Orthodox documents on line, and I haven't seen anything that contradicts.

Good, I suppose. I mean, I'm glad if you can affirm what we affirm in our prayers. This is better than disagreeing. But this does not mean that the feeling is mutual when we look at RCism, unfortunately. As I've just written in the previous paragraph, these things are your own philosophy and terminology, and don't really have a place in our way of being Christian. Hence we do not affirm them, and mostly do not know what they are. They're the foreign doctrines of a foreign Church that does not share our faith.

Because usually those differences start off with something that isn't true on the other side. This is the point of the thread, to try to clear away the rubbish and misinformation, and figure out among thinking adults what are and are not the differences in teaching.

Again, I would say that the difference is that you have this entire way of being that is foreign to us. Hence things that make sense for you, like transubstantiation, are not things that occur in either the OO or EO church, since that is not how either are. It is an ontological problem, as per HAH Bartholomew (and not only him; I just chose him because it's easy to find his address at Georgetown in 1997, which goes into this in some detail).

I think that the term "ontologically different" as being misused here.

Misused how?

And I do find it interesting that this term which is used frequently is a modern philosophical term, that by its very definition would not apply in the case of multiple groups of Christians in Schism.

What do you mean by this?

Do I think that there are differences between Copts and Romans? You bet yea; but there isn't going to be two different heavens to hold us,

Huh? Where are you getting this from? I never suggested such a thing (nor would I).

and the relationship we will have with God isn't going to be fundamentally different either.

Well this is a somewhat different question. I'm honestly tempted to say "it is now here on earth", in the very strict sense that we do not now share the same faith and the same cup, but even then that would not say anything about heaven. I don't doubt that there are faithful Roman Catholics and unfaithful Copts. Again, it's not about cultures; it's about faith, and of course faithfulness. (NB: I am not an ethnic Coptic person, and yet my faith is that of any born-Egyptian Orthodox Christian.)

So unless you are assuming that only Copts and those "ontologically similar" are going to make it to heaven; then this term is completely misappropriated to explain the differences between the two Patriarchates.

I'm not even slightly assuming that. That's bizarre. Such an idea is absolutely outside of what we can say, or do say. "The holies are for the holy", not "the only holy people are people of XYZ tradition or background". That would not be even slightly possible in a Church that venerates our fathers among the Romans like the brothers St. Maximus and St. Domatius, the desert father St. Arsenius, HH Pope St. Liberius and other Roman Popes of the early centuries of Roman Christianity, and so on.

I really do not understand where this is coming from. Again, it's about the faith itself, not the background of the person proclaiming it.

Erose · Sep 13, 2017

dzheremi said:
Yes. My own baptismal saint, St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, the father of theology in the Coptic language, was given a classical Greek (philosophical) education, as is common of many of the early Egyptian saints. The School of Alexandria taught not only theology, but also classical philosophy, as it was modeled on the pre-Christian Mouseion that flourished in that city before Christianity. To quote a Church source on the school:

"It would have been a grave error to have confined the School's activities to theology. Its teaching was encyclopedic; first presenting the whole series of profane sciences, and then rising to moral and religious philosophy, and finally to Christian theology, as set forth in the form of commentaries on the sacred books. This encyclopedic conception of teaching was an Alexandrian tradition, for it was also found in Alexandrian pagan and Jewish schools."

So once again, the issue is not philosophy itself -- and I don't believe either I nor any other poster in this thread has claimed that the Fathers did not have philosophical stances or views (I don't even know how that would be possible). Rather, philosophy must be given its proper place and not allowed to extend beyond the boundaries of what we can know or plausibly claim, in line with our faith. It seems to outsiders that the RC draws that 'line' much more liberally than the EO or OO do (I don't know enough about Anglicans and the like to say, though I get the sense from the Anglican posters in this thread that they share some of the EO and OO reticence to pry too much into certain matters).

I do not know enough about the philosophical growth in either to make a comment here, so I won't. This I think we have made some progress.

dzheremi said:
Is it too much to say that these questions are irrelevant? I don't mean to brush you off as though they don't have their place within the context in which the RCC invented the doctrine of transubstantiation, but that is not our context in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Rather, we affirm, as per our prayers, that what we receive is the holy body and precious blood of our Lord, God, and Savior, Jesus Christ. We do not say "we experience this physically, and that spiritually."

Okay.

dzheremi said:
Good, I suppose. I mean, I'm glad if you can affirm what we affirm in our prayers. This is better than disagreeing. But this does not mean that the feeling is mutual when we look at RCism, unfortunately. As I've just written in the previous paragraph, these things are your own philosophy and terminology, and don't really have a place in our way of being Christian. Hence we do not affirm them, and mostly do not know what they are. They're the foreign doctrines of a foreign Church that does not share our faith.

I get that. This is something that I proposed a way back that philosophy and terminology are important factors in how we approach our faith differently. The question that is raise are these differences irreconcilable. I believe on our side they are not; but on yours they are it seems, and I can accept that.

dzheremi said:
Again, I would say that the difference is that you have this entire way of being that is foreign to us. Hence things that make sense for you, like transubstantiation, are not things that occur in either the OO or EO church, since that is not how either are. It is an ontological problem, as per HAH Bartholomew (and not only him; I just chose him because it's easy to find his address at Georgetown in 1997, which goes into this in some detail).

Again, I think using the word ontological to express our differences is an entirely wrong use of that word, unless it is being defined differently that how it is defined. I do not believe that we (Catholics, Orthodox and for that matter most Traditional Protestants are ontologically different). Through our common Baptism, this is an impossibility. It would be like claiming that three brothers begotten from the same Father and mother are ontologically different from each other.

dzheremi said:
Misused how?

Google it.

dzheremi said:
What do you mean by this?

See above.

dzheremi said:
Huh? Where are you getting this from? I never suggested such a thing (nor would I).

It is what is being implied. If we are ontologically different then that mean that we are substantially different. Baptism, our redemption, the God that we commonly worship and call Father, our common future, tells a quite different story that says no to us being ontologically different. Buddhist and Christian religions are ontologically different; but Catholic and Orthodox, and for that matter traditional Protestants? Not so much.

dzheremi said:
Well this is a somewhat different question. I'm honestly tempted to say "it is now here on earth", in the very strict sense that we do not now share the same faith and the same cup, but even then that would not say anything about heaven. I don't doubt that there are faithful Roman Catholics and unfaithful Copts. Again, it's not about cultures; it's about faith, and of course faithfulness. (NB: I am not an ethnic Coptic person, and yet my faith is that of any born-Egyptian Orthodox Christian.)

In my opinion, God's relationship with all Christians is unique to that Christian. Why? Because we are all different, and different things effect us differently. God knows each one of us intimately, and treats us all differently as well. This is what Fathers do with their children. If He treated us all the exact same...well then that would make Muslims right and us wrong. This doesn't mean that we are all ontologically different; just different.

dzheremi said:
I'm not even slightly assuming that. That's bizarre. Such an idea is absolutely outside of what we can say, or do say. "The holies are for the holy", not "the only holy people are people of XYZ tradition or background". That would not be even slightly possible in a Church that venerates our fathers among the Romans like the brothers St. Maximus and St. Domatius, the desert father St. Arsenius, HH Pope St. Liberius and other Roman Popes of the early centuries of Roman Christianity, and so on.

I really do not understand where this is coming from. Again, it's about the faith itself, not the background of the person proclaiming it.

Its coming from the misappropriation of the word used. Ontological difference is just that, a difference in being. Like I wrote before two brothers from the same Father and mother, cannot be ontologically different. In all intents and purposes, we live in the same household. We worship the same God. We share a common baptism. And one day we will share the same heaven if God is willing. Culturally different, yes; differences in worship, yes; differences in theology, yes; but ontologically different? No, that goes too far.

Paidiske · Sep 14, 2017

If I may, Erose, and without wishing to derail your conversation, but your last posts have confused me...

It is my understanding that Roman Catholics would say that clergy are ontologically different from laity, (a claim which gives me significant pause, but let's set that aside for a moment). If even clergy and laity within the one communion can be ontologically different, how is it so unreasonable to say that Christians of different communions are ontologically different? Surely the gulf between a Catholic lay person and an Orthodox lay person is much larger than that between a Catholic priest and a Catholic lay person?

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 14, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
Oh that's right, I forgot your church didn't have to contend with challenges and heresies from Luther and his Protestant minions, silly me.

In 1098, Crusaders took the city and set up a Latin Patriarchate of Antioch to adorn its Latin Kingdom of Syria, while a Greek patriarchate continued in exile in Constantinople. After nearly two centuries of Crusader rule, the Egyptian Mamelukes seized Antioch in 1268, and the Orthodox patriarch, Theodosius IV, was able to return to the region. By this point, Antioch itself had been reduced to a smaller town, and so in the 14th century Ignatius II transferred the seat of the patriarchate to Damascus, where it remains to this day, though the patriarch retains the Antiochian title.

Nope... didn't have to defend against Protestants.

Forgive me...

The Eucharist: True differences between Catholics and Orthodox???

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Newbie

Newbie

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Newbie

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Newbie

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Newbie

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Newbie

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Similar threads