Reason, Intellect, and Understanding in Orthodoxy and Western Christianity

[~Anastasia~]

It depends upon which Orthodox you talk to.

I really don't think it does ... but we've been there.


And I should say I've never been able to pin down the Anglican belief in order to compare.

But Erose, Orthodox really do know what we believe. It just does not attempt to explain beyond a certain very basic point.

 

[Erose]

I really don't think it does ... but we've been there.


And I should say I've never been able to pin down the Anglican belief in order to compare.

But Erose, Orthodox really do know what we believe. It just does not attempt to explain beyond a certain very basic point.

I would really like to see this part cleared up. Again, no attack upon the Orthodox church is intended here, but after our discussion in the other thread, I still really do not fully understand what the Orthodox teach concerning this matter.

I'm hoping that All4Christ is correct, and if so, then Orthodoxy and Catholicism are fully in line with our teachings on the matter.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would really like to see this part cleared up. Again, no attack upon the Orthodox church is intended here, but after our discussion in the other thread, I still really do not fully understand what the Orthodox teach concerning this matter.

I'm hoping that All4Christ is correct, and if so, then Orthodoxy and Catholicism are fully in line with our teachings on the matter.

I think understand and I'd like to see it cleared up too.

As to whether we are in agreement, I have a discomfort on that. The reason is that you don't seem to accept the basis of our answer - which is distilled in the yes/yes answer if "is it bread and wine or is it the Body and blood?" ... and that it is changed by the Holy Spirit. If that and that alone is enough for you, then you might say we agree. If you need ANYTHING more than that, you'd have to state exactly what else you need, and we can say whether we agree.

I'm hesitant to use words like "Real Presence" or "Transubstantuation". Not because Christ isn't really present (He is) and not because the bread/wine are not changed (they are) ... but because those are technical terms that necessarily include some further explanation than what I've given, and while those explanations may or may not be true, we do not employ them. Because we consider anything beyond the very basic answer to be speculation, and in the case of the Eucharist particularly, there is Mystery where speculation is not allowed.

That is as succinctly as I can say it.

 

[Erose]

I think understand and I'd like to see it cleared up too.

As to whether we are in agreement, I have a discomfort on that. The reason is that you don't seem to accept the basis of our answer - which is distilled in the yes/yes answer if "is it bread and wine or is it the Body and blood?" ... and that it is changed by the Holy Spirit. If that and that alone is enough for you, then you might say we agree. If you need ANYTHING more than that, you'd have to state exactly what else you need, and we can say whether we agree.

I would accept your answer if I was truly convinced if the yes/yes answer is the teaching of Orthodoxy. I'm not sure if it is.

I'm hesitant to use words like "Real Presence" or "Transubstantuation". Not because Christ isn't really present (He is) and not because the bread/wine are not changed (they are) ... but because those are technical terms that necessarily include some further explanation than what I've given, and while those explanations may or may not be true, we do not employ them. Because we consider anything beyond the very basic answer to be speculation, and in the case of the Eucharist particularly, there is Mystery where speculation is not allowed.

That is as succinctly as I can say it.

We do have another thread on this matter, and thus am hesitant to go further to derail this one.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would accept your answer if I was truly convinced if the yes/yes answer is the teaching of Orthodoxy. I'm not sure if it is.

We do have another thread on this matter, and thus am hesitant to go further to derail this one.

Right, we should move it there.

I'll tell you what - I'm not willing to make errors or assumptions either. I have actually a few hundred priests, monastics, a few bishops and abbots among my FB friends. They are very helpful to me in correcting any errors. I will ask there and see if I need further correction. I would welcome it if so. Will reply in other thread. (Feel free to remind me if I forget - I can't quite keep up with CF these days.)

 

[mark46]

It depends upon which Orthodox you talk to.

and which Anglican

 

[Philip_B]

Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, I believe, both embrace something of the ineffable in understanding the Holy Eucharist.

Some Anglicans don't accept transibstantiation because they think it goes too far, whilst other Anglicans don't accept transubstantiation because they think it does not go far enough.

Yet I think we would agree that if we do not regognise Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Altar then we will never recognise him in the apalling disgiuse of the poor.

 

[Erose]

Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, I believe, both embrace something of the ineffable in understanding the Holy Eucharist.

Some Anglicans don't accept transibstantiation because they think it goes too far, whilst other Anglicans don't accept transubstantiation because they think it does not go far enough.

Yet I think we would agree that if we do not regognise Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Altar then we will never recognise him in the apalling disgiuse of the poor.

Here is the question that I have: In what way do some Anglicans think transubstantiation goes too far?

 

[Philip_B]

Here is the question that I have: In what way do some Anglicans think transubstantiation goes too far?

I don't know the answer to that question, however I can tell you 39 articles do suggest that it overthrows the nature of a sacrament. By that I take it to mean that a sacrament is a sign - and a sign needs to point to something or declare something. The sign cannot be the thing in itself otherwise it is nit a sign but the thing in itself.

I am visiting Scotland at the moment and the rubbish receptacles in the street are brightly painted with the words 'It's a bin - put your litter in'. It of course is a sign with a message, and it would be easy to confuse the thing in itself with the sign, and whilst they are closely allied, they are not absolutely one and the same thing.

In terms of the discussion I would be an Anglican who thinks that transubstantiation does not go far enough - on the understanding that the physicality of the sacrament is not a sufficient description of the whole of reality.

 

[gordonhooker]

Here is the question that I have: In what way do some Anglicans think transubstantiation goes too far?

I agree with Phillip. In my opinion the mystery is far deeper than the focusing on the physical attributes of the Eucharist, though important they are, also to get bogged down on the doctrine and dogma surrounding the Eucharist is to miss the point. We are all the Body of Christ!

 

[Erose]

I agree with Phillip. In my opinion the mystery is far deeper than the focusing on the physical attributes of the Eucharist, though important they are, also to get bogged down on the doctrine and dogma surrounding the Eucharist is to miss the point. We are all the Body of Christ!

So my question is this who is getting bogged down on the doctrine? Do we get bogged down concerning our relationship with God, when we have the doctrine of the Trinity? This part IMO is confusing to me, why this mentality is proposed. Who in their right mind thinks that the doctrine of transubstantiation takes away from the experience the average Catholic has when receiving the Lord in the Eucharist?

 

[Targaryen]

So my question is this who is getting bogged down on the doctrine? Do we get bogged down concerning our relationship with God, when we have the doctrine of the Trinity? This part IMO is confusing to me, why this mentality is proposed. Who in their right mind thinks that the doctrine of transubstantiation takes away from the experience the average Catholic has when receiving the Lord in the Eucharist?

I don't think anyone has suggested that as far as I can tell, nor would I suggest that now. What I believe Gordon is saying, like Philip is, and I can only speak from the Anglican perspective, the reason the Real Presence is not really hashed out how the elements become Our Lord's Blood and Body, we know that there is a change there that is profound. That's why Philip and Gordon say that to us, and we are Roman so,again, this is our view, transubstantiation may not go far enough.

Does this negate the Roman view, no, it just makes the Roman view different.

 

[mark46]

I agree with Phillip. In my opinion the mystery is far deeper than the focusing on the physical attributes of the Eucharist, though important they are, also to get bogged down on the doctrine and dogma surrounding the Eucharist is to miss the point. We are all the Body of Christ![/QUOTE

What you say is certainly true. We shouldn't focus on the mechanism of the mysteries, especially the Eucharist.

For me (and most Anglicans in our church community) I would say the we view that we are indeed the Body Of Christ. That does not change the fact that Christ is present in a very real way in His Presence in the Eucharist. In the same way, we are all part of the invisible church. Yet, there is also the Church.

 

[Erose]

I don't think anyone has suggested that as far as I can tell, nor would I suggest that now. What I believe Gordon is saying, like Philip is, and I can only speak from the Anglican perspective, the reason the Real Presence is not really hashed out how the elements become Our Lord's Blood and Body, we know that there is a change there that is profound. That's why Philip and Gordon say that to us, and we are Roman so,again, this is our view, transubstantiation may not go far enough.

Does this negate the Roman view, no, it just makes the Roman view different.

I think that these last few posts have emphasized a point that I made in another thread about the matter. There are a lot of people who disagree with transubstantiation more because of what they assume it is, than on what it truly is.

 

[gordonhooker]

So my question is this who is getting bogged down on the doctrine? Do we get bogged down concerning our relationship with God, when we have the doctrine of the Trinity? This part IMO is confusing to me, why this mentality is proposed. Who in their right mind thinks that the doctrine of transubstantiation takes away from the experience the average Catholic has when receiving the Lord in the Eucharist?

Hi Erose - that is not what I was saying Targaryen put's what I was going to reply with quite well so I won't add to what he says:

I don't think anyone has suggested that as far as I can tell, nor would I suggest that now. What I believe Gordon is saying, like Philip is, and I can only speak from the Anglican perspective, the reason the Real Presence is not really hashed out how the elements become Our Lord's Blood and Body, we know that there is a change there that is profound. That's why Philip and Gordon say that to us, and we are Roman so,again, this is our view, transubstantiation may not go far enough.

Does this negate the Roman view, no, it just makes the Roman view different.

 

[Erose]

Hi Erose - that is not what I was saying Targaryen put's what I was going to reply with quite well so I won't add to what he says:

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, but you are the one who wrote about us Catholics getting bogged down. Your words not mine.

 

[Targaryen]

But, we keep going around in circles over how we're defining how Eucharistic elements go from one state to another. I think what Gordon was trying to say, in the end, the terms we may use to define the change is less important then the change and what it means for the believer that takes part in the Holy Mysteries.

 

[Erose]

But, we keep going around in circles over how we're defining how Eucharistic elements go from one state to another. I think what Gordon was trying to say, in the end, the terms we may use to define the change is less important then the change and what it means for the believer that takes part in the Holy Mysteries.

I would agree, except in the case of defending the Christian belief against heresies. Anyway, there is another thread on the matter that we are speaking of; and this isn't the appropiate one to do this in.

 

[Targaryen]

And are we defining heresies based on the Roman position that came after the Reformation? What is your criteria on what counts as heresy here?

 

[Erose]

And are we defining heresies based on the Roman position that came after the Reformation? What is your criteria on what counts as heresy here?

Again this is discussed in detail in the other thread on the Eucharist; but my criteria on what counts as a heresy here, is any teaching that opposes the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is these heresies before and from the Protestant Rebellion, which required to Church at the Council of Trent to define in the language that it used the doctrine of the Eucharist.