I agree though that we can't fully know God and that we only know what He communicates to us.
Wonderful! You basically grasp and accept the essence/ energies distinction.
Although Catholics believe in transubstantiation, we do agree that it is a mystery, meaning that we don't fully understand how it happens or even how something could
be one thing (essence) but
look like another (accidents).
I guess what I'm wondering now is, ..according to Orthodoxy..Is Christ present in the Eucharist in His 'essence', or in His 'energies'. And that's probably the very question you were trying to avoid
haha.. but is there an answer?
The holy fathers compare what happens at the Eucharist to the Incarnation. Here's a link to an RC site to show you that the RCC sees the fathers the same way-- at least on this issue.
Turns out I'm not allowed to post links yet. But you can try this:
On your address bar, after the "http. . . ww" you can cut-and-paste the following:
cfpeople.org
Once you enter the site, on the left, click "Apologetics".
Once there, go down to "Eucharist, Miscellaneous" and click the article "The Eucharist-Witness of the Fathers".
Or just google "
The Eucharist - Witness of the Fathers by Dom Jerome Gassner, O.S.B.".
Anyway, if we follow this patristic tactic, of comparing the Eucharist to the Incarnation, we begin by looking at Christ's Incarnation.
There's a range of beliefs about Christ. One can believe He's:
1-Only a man (
Judaism).
2-An inspired man (prophet)
(Islam).
3-Man plus a created spirit
(Arianism)(Jehovah's Witnesses).
4-Fully man and fully God (EOC and RCC).
5-Missing a human will but fully God
(Monothelites).
6-Missing a human soul but fully God (
Monophysites).
7-Only God (His human body being an illusion)
(Docetism).
Plus a hundred variations in between. Obviously, the EOC and RCC teach no.4.
Now, if we make an analogy with the Eucharist, as the fathers do,we could fill in a similar range. After consecration, the Eucharist is:
1-Only bread-and-wine.
2-Bread-and-wine with God's grace hovering around.
3-Bread-and-wine with created spirit within it.
4-Fully bread-and-wine and fully Christ (in His human and Divine natures).
5-Missing some aspects of bread-and-wine but fully Christ.
6-Missing most aspects of bread-and-wine but fully Christ.
7-Only Christ (the bread-and-wine being only illusions).
To be theologically consistent, we must accept no. 4. After consecration, the Eucharist is fully bread, fully wine, and fully Christ-- both His human and Divine natures. This includes His human body and blood, and His Divine essence and energies.
However, when we receive communion, we receive everything except His Divine essence.
Curiously, The RCC teaching of
Transubstantiation, which dates from the Council of Trent (1500s), appears to be closer to no.7. It seems to make the bread and wine mere illusions.
Granted, the ancient fathers never went into such detail, but the gist of their language, and even their words (e.g. "this is not
plain bread. . . but
also Christ"), seem to support no.4.
If i just revealed myself to be a flaming heretic, please respond to this post, someone. I am open to correction.
