Dear
eleos1954,
This is not accurate, nor is it even a proper definition of the term in English (much less Greek or Hebrew). God, for example, is the substance of Divinity, yet He has no tangible, solid presence intrinsic to his nature. Angels and demons are spiritual substances, but they too are immaterial.
The esteemed Merrian-Webster Dictionary defines substance as:
Hence the use of the term "whole substance" by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (reiterating previous ecumenical councils & teachings for centuries, btw) is drawing on the basic definition of substance, especially as it is most rationally used & understood. This is true both in the Western Church (transubstantiatio) and the Eastern Catholic Churches (μετουσίωσις). The latter especially brings this out because it uses "οὐσία" – essence or inmost reality. In other words, the consecration transforms the bread and wine into the whole substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. What it appears to be is irrelevant, as substances do not need to look a certain way. Prior to the Incarnation, God had no image, tangibility, or solidity, but nevertheless remained the Divine Essence. If anything the maintenance of the appearances of bread and wine are meant for our sake, as the exchange in John 6:52-62. Although, even then if the appearance changed with the substance, it would be that of the Glorified, Risen Christ, not the kenotic one who "took the form of a slave."
In all charity, neither of these basic concepts relies on any kind of fundamental Aristotelianism, as is often claimed. It was already present in the Early Church long before Aristotle become vogue in the West. And the East, which has almost no Aristotelian philosophical influence as recently as 1672 A.D. affirmed "μετουσίωσις," especially in contradistinction to the Protestants (Calvinists, mainly) who were working in Eastern Orthodox lands:
To my delight I find myself agreeing entirely with your Eucharistic theology,
@Reader Antonius , since earlier it seemed like the Scholastic interpretation of the Real Presence was more complex than that, but this I agree with, and several aspects of it we can tell from the texts of the liturgy are at a minimum, Oriental Orthodox, and very possibly Eastern Orthodox and contemporary Assyrian* doctrine.
Concerning Aristotle, it is a common misconception that the Eastern Orthodox prefer Plato unequivocally; on the contrary, Aristotle, who was somewhat less of a mystic than Plato and whose ideas did not lead to the formation of something like Neo-Platonism, which in the fourth century was the main force driving Hellenic Paganism and keeping it competitive with the more intellectually sophisticated monotheistic religions of the era such as the orthodox Early Church, not yet divided by any lasting schism, and Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeanism and the Indian religions (at the time, Buddhism, Jainism and the various flavors of Hinduism; Sikhism did not come along until much later). It is true however that the Church Fathers did make extensive use of Plato to communicate Judeo-Christian doctrinal concepts like Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word of God, the Memra in Hebraic, using the Platonic term Logos, which is obviously the most applicable term. However other Platonic concepts, for example, his theory of Ideals, were much more of a thing in Zoroastrianism.
In particular, Aristotle was extensively used by a contemporary of St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Eastern Orthodox theologian St. Gregory Palamas (who I believe is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Catholic churches such as the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Greek Catholic Churches and the Melkite Catholic Church, despite having contradicted Latin doctrine and having done so in the mid 14th century; his opponent, Barlaam, objected to the practices of the Hesychast monks on Mount Athos such as St. Symeon the New Theologian. After a pan-Orthodox synod affirmed the Palamist doctrine in defense of the Hesychasts, Barlaam left and joined the Roman Catholic Church.
The interesting fact however is that both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Gregory Palamas were making extensive use of Aristotle in their work. However, as far as I am aware, St. Gregory did not make use of the commentaries written by the Islamic philosopher Averroes, whereas these were extremely important to Aquinas.
Regarding 1672, what you are referring to is the Synod of Dositheus, convened by the Eastern Orthodox bishops on the occasion of the consecration of the freshly rebuilt Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (which like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, is shared with the Oriental Orthodox, and I think the Roman Catholics, hence a blend of Byzantine and Armenian and some Latin design structures, although the Church of the Nativity looks much more Armenian and the Holy Sepulchre much more Byzantine), St. Dositheus being Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem.
The reason for the synod, which is considered a local council and not an Ecumenical Council, although bishops from other autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches did participate, was in response to letters allegedly written by the 16th century Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople which agreed with several propositions of Calvinist theology. This Patriarch was then assasinated at the behest of the Sultan for some reason involving Ottoman court intrigue. My understanding is that most Eastern Orthodox regard the letters as forgeries, or otherwise without certain knowledge are hesitant to accuse a potential hieromartyr of heresy, but since this alleged correspondance had the effect of introducing Calvinist monergism into the Orthodox church, it was felt a response was needed.
Strictly speaking, they could have simply relied on the Ecumenical Councils, since monergism, which is the primary difference between Calvinist and Orthodox thought, was anathematized at that time.
The council took the interesting step of declaring John Calvin a heresiarch, that is to say, the ruler of a heresy, a title also used for the likes of Marcion, Sabellius, Arius, Nestorius, etc, although I have heard from some Eastern Orthodox that the church cannot anathematize someone who is not a member of it or otherwise seeking to corrupt the Holy Tradition, the faith once delivered to the saints, as the Epistle of St. Jude puts it. Thus, for example, there is not to my knowledge a specific anathema in place against Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy or other recent heresiarchs; rather, they were outside of the church, and what they taught is specifically anathematized by earlier ecumenical councils.
I would appreciate it if my dear Eastern Orthodox friends
@prodromos or
@HTacianas or
@PsaltiChrysostom could review my post for accuracy, since I am going from memory concerning the Synod of Jerusalem, as the 1672 council is also sometimes called, and my memory alas sometimes lets me down.
I would also note that the Oriental Orthodox theology clearly agrees with Eastern Orthodoxy here like nearly everywhere else, as
@dzheremi and
@Pavel Mosko can confirm. And our new friend
@coorilose can confirm that the British East India Company basically enabled a Calvinist-leaning bishop to embezzle the gold coins that were the savings of the Syriac Orthodox Church in India, which had been deposited in their bank in good faith, I believe it was a sum of 40 golden guineas, which was worth quite a lot in the early 19th century, to establish the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is one of only a handful of Protestant churches to be established as the result of a schism with an Orthodox Church (the only other ones I can think of are the Ukrainian Lutheran Church and the Georgian Evangelical Baptist Church, which is rather liberal and has female priests, but which retains much of the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, and curiously even uses Athonite/Russian/Georgian vestments, like the distinctly shaped Phelonion (chasuble), albeit with rather bland decoration.
Likewise, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church uses somewhat watered down versions of Syriac Orthodox vestments, a watered down version of the Divine Liturgy of St. James (I say watered down because it is diluted with a kind of Calvinist-Anglican hybrid doctrine by way of simply deleting parts of the liturgy deemed doctrinally unacceptable, but also the prayers are greatly simplified, and all of this is done in a manner which lacks the originality and elegance of original Protestant liturgical compositions, such as in the various versions of the
Book of Common Prayer, the beautiful liturgies written by early Calvinists, for example, Boucher, and other works such as the exquisite
Devotional Services for Public Worship composed by the great Congregationalist pastor Rev. John Hunter.
Since the initial controversy however, my understanding is that relations between the Mar Thoma Syrian Church and the Orthodox have improved; the main tension in the Indian Syriac church at present is the unfortunate poor relationship between the Jacobite Church which is part of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, also known as the Indian Orthodox Church, which is autocephalous under the Catholicos of India.
There is also a small jurisdiction, the Malankara Independent Syrian Church, in Thoyizoor (also frequently called Thoyizoor for convenience) which is a bit of an anomaly, since they are effectively in full communion with the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is Protestant and a part of the Anglican Communion, despite being doctrinally and liturgigcaly Orthodox. Indeed their Metropolitan ordains the Metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, and vice versa, whenever one of them dies or leaves office. This is the only situation in the world where an Orthodox Church and a Protestant Church have a sacramental bond. I am not sure if any of the other Oriental Orthodox churches recognize or are in communion with the Malankara Independent Syrian Church; they migjt be, but I would not be surprised if the communion between Thoyizoor and the Protestant Mar Thoma Syrian Church would be a deal breaker as far as that goes.
All of this is of course particularly interesting when one considers that around 1900 a great many of the high church bishops of the Episcopal Church USA did attempt to become the Western Orthodox Church in full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, and in the 18th century the non-juring Scottish and Northern English Episcopalians attempted a union with the Eastern Orthodox as well.
*The Assyrian Church of the East under Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, renounced some Nestorian Christological concepts, and agrees with the formula as I expressed it, despite still venerating Nestorius. Also as far as I am aware, both the Assyrian Church of the East and its smaller Old Calendarist counterpart the Ancient Church of the East long ago rejected the full apokatasis / universalism we see expressed in recently translated writings of St. Isaac the Syrian and in the Book of the Bee, a work of history and doctrine by Mar Solomon the Bishop of Basra, from around the year 800 if memory serves (
@Pavel Mosko will know the exact date I am sure, having been a member of the Assyrian church).
