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

[Erose]

This may also be true for us, we are not bound to call them perfect. Many an ECF has been wrong about many things. Many crossed several lines they should not have. King David and Moses did too.

Forgive me...

Ignorance is bliss kind of thing then. I guess Arian should have been left alone then.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ignorance is bliss kind of thing then. I guess Arian should have been left alone then.

Forgive me, but why would you even say such a thing?

We acknowledge that any ECF, or Saint, is not in himself infallible.

Arius was dealt with appropriately.

I don't understand your motives ...

 

[All4Christ]

@Erose - ultimately, we believe that the Eucharist becomes the true body and blood of Christ, mystically changed by the Holy Spirit. That is in every catechism we have and is in the liturgy itself.

This is from a book we use for catechism in the OCA:

- Holy Communion

 

[All4Christ]

Interestingly, the link I provided from "These Truths We Hold" references the catechism of Metropolitan Philaret.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Ecumenical Councils are not the same as an individual ECF.

Forgive me...

 

[Erose]

Forgive me, but why would you even say such a thing?

We acknowledge that any ECF, or Saint, is not in himself infallible.

Arius was dealt with appropriately.

I don't understand your motives ...

My motives however inappropriate were not directed toward you.

 

[Erose]

@Erose - ultimately, we believe that the Eucharist becomes the true body and blood of Christ, mystically changed by the Holy Spirit. That is in every catechism we have and is in the liturgy itself.

This is from a book we use for catechism in the OCA:

- Holy Communion

Thank you. I read the article previously, and this led me to believe we are much closer in belief than some realize.

 

[Erose]

Ecumenical Councils are not the same as an individual ECF.

Forgive me...

But when you have universal agreement that is significant.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

But when you have universal agreement that is significant.

Right!

Hope you're finding what you are looking for.

Forgive me...

 

[thecolorsblend]

Thank you. I read the article previously, and this led me to believe we are much closer in belief than some realize.

I often think this when one of the more erudite Orthodox members explain their beliefs.

Because of that, I was filled with curiosity about why they believe there's so much disagreement between us.

I've since begun wondering that many Orthodox don't want to agree with us. Or perhaps don't want to acknowledge that we do agree.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I've since begun wondering that many Orthodox don't want to agree with us. Or perhaps don't want to acknowledge that we do agree.

Well, I don't.

Forgive me...

 

[thecolorsblend]

Points for honesty.

 

[Erose]

I often think this when one of the more erudite Orthodox members explain their beliefs.

Because of that, I was filled with curiosity about why they believe there's so much disagreement between us.

I've since begun wondering that many Orthodox don't want to agree with us. Or perhaps don't want to acknowledge that we do agree.

I would be careful with making this statement. I think in most cases our differences is a matter of language and how a doctrine is approached. There is wealth of edification for both sides in learning each other's understandings. Transubstantiation is a Latin term and not Greek, and how we understand the Eucharist and the language we use is Western and not Eastern.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I would be careful with making this statement. I think in most cases our differences is a matter of language and how a doctrine is approached. There is wealth of edification for both sides in learning each other's understandings. Transubstantiation is a Latin term and not Greek, and how we understand the Eucharist and the language we use is Western and not Eastern.

I get that. But what I don't get is why the Orthodox struggle with this concept. Even if one has issues with how transubstantiation gets defined, can we at least recognize that the word and the explication of it came about only because this doctrine (understood and unchallenged for centuries) got torn apart by a bunch of Protestants?

Orthodoxy has faced many challenges over the years. I'd never say otherwise. But I've never read about them facing a Martin Luther and his minions before. I don't understand why the Orthodox struggle to grasp that the Catholic Church has had to face a different array of challenges over the centuries and thus evolved in a different environment than they did.

Seriously, what's the mystery here? Our road wasn't theirs and vice versa. It isn't complicated. The Catholic Church has had to face different challenges at different times than the Orthodox Church has and it kind of grinds my gears that those considerations aren't taken into account when we talk about why our definition of the Eucharist (specifically that we even have a definition of it) isn't the same as theirs anymore.

Maybe I'm just cranky today though.

 

[Targaryen]

I get that. But what I don't get is why the Orthodox struggle with this concept. Even if one has issues with how transubstantiation gets defined, can we at least recognize that the word and the explication of it came about only because this doctrine (understood and unchallenged for centuries) got torn apart by a bunch of Protestants?

Orthodoxy has faced many challenges over the years. I'd never say otherwise. But I've never read about them facing a Martin Luther and his minions before. I don't understand why the Orthodox struggle to grasp that the Catholic Church has had to face a different array of challenges over the centuries and thus evolved in a different environment than they did.

Seriously, what's the mystery here? Our road wasn't theirs and vice versa. It isn't complicated. The Catholic Church has had to face different challenges at different times than the Orthodox Church has and it kind of grinds my gears that those considerations aren't taken into account when we talk about why our definition of the Eucharist (specifically that we even have a definition of it) isn't the same as theirs anymore.

Maybe I'm just cranky today though.

No I think your pretty bang on. Rome's has had more of a need to explain it's position clearly cause of factors like us cranky Protestants at one time ripping things apart. Perhaps the mystery is more of the West's bafflement of Eastern practice, and vice versa.

 

[All4Christ]

I get that. But what I don't get is why the Orthodox struggle with this concept. Even if one has issues with how transubstantiation gets defined, can we at least recognize that the word and the explication of it came about only because this doctrine (understood and unchallenged for centuries) got torn apart by a bunch of Protestants?

Orthodoxy has faced many challenges over the years. I'd never say otherwise. But I've never read about them facing a Martin Luther and his minions before. I don't understand why the Orthodox struggle to grasp that the Catholic Church has had to face a different array of challenges over the centuries and thus evolved in a different environment than they did.

Seriously, what's the mystery here? Our road wasn't theirs and vice versa. It isn't complicated. The Catholic Church has had to face different challenges at different times than the Orthodox Church has and it kind of grinds my gears that those considerations aren't taken into account when we talk about why our definition of the Eucharist (specifically that we even have a definition of it) isn't the same as theirs anymore.

Maybe I'm just cranky today though.

I understand and realize that the Catholic Church had challenges which caused her to define doctrines further, though I still believe some doctrines were not necessary to be defined as dogma. The Eucharist is a perfect example of a situation where it was important to clarify beliefs - hence causing the Catholic Church to make her beliefs into dogma in response to this situation. I honestly am more comfortable with the basic underlying meaning of transubstantiation - or at least the resulting reality - than I am of some of the surrounding writings by prominent Catholic theologians of the time. Erose is right that we do not approach doctrines from a Western viewpoint (though we do have the Western Rite Orthodox Church that has more western nuances in her practices).

My point in this is that I do recognize the this was a difficult situation. I do find it to be helpful to identify the common beliefs - and to respect eachother's beliefs respectively. That's the purpose of Traditional Theology. However, there are times where we believe our view does not reconcile with the Catholic beliefs, when some members of the Catholic Church seem to believe and assert that it is just nuanced differently (i.e. the immaculate conception). I believe this contributes to some reactions.

Personally, I do consider and understand reasons why...as you can see in earlier posts. I do not use neoaristotelian terminology and I am not comfortable with that approach, but I understand why the Catholic Church decided to make this into a dogma.

Honestly, many of us have not done what you say we are doing. If I didn't want to respect each other and try to understand each other, I wouldn't participate in Traditional Theology. I especially wouldn't be an ambassador for Traditional Theology if I didn't believe in respect and understanding. My belief in doing this goes beyond liturgical churches - and I know others who have the same goal (and often express it better than myself). I truly hope others know that from our discussions. We can agree to disagree respectfully as well when appropriate.

 

[dzheremi]

For the thread's consideration, I would submit that there is a difference between "not wanting to agree", as has been put forth, and not accepting being told "we believe the same thing, just define it differently" or whatever. It has been shown how we (EO and OO) 'define' this matter, from our own respective liturgical texts and traditions, and from what I have seen from the Roman Catholic side, what they do is not the 'same thing', insofar as they do not limit themselves to whatever their liturgical texts and other traditional prayers say, but go beyond those.

I'm not going to say that there's not reason for that, but recognizing that there may be reasons or motivations for doing something is not the same as agreeing. If it's about the 'end product' or whatever, whereby we can all say that, yes, the Eucharistic sacrifice is the true body and blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ (and you just arrive at that conclusion by this way, whereas I arrive at it by that way), then sure, as you've defined it, we agree. But, at any other level, once we get into how we reach this conclusion, it doesn't seem that there is agreement.

And the differences, such that they are, are all located precisely in this discussion of how and to what degree we can even pry into this matter, which makes it especially odd that this particular defense would be raised in this thread, and not another that was explicitly addressing the similarities to be found among Catholics and Orthodox.

So I can't help but think that there's a bit of chicanery going on here, in that it is put forth that Orthodox maybe just "don't want to agree", which very handily avoids even the possibility of there being differences between them and the Catholics. Having been a Roman Catholic myself, I can say from personal experience and with no malice that as far as I can remember, you guys are sincerely taught that your Church is closer to the Orthodox Church than any other, so from your side I can see how this makes sense as an approach. And maybe EO in particular feel the same (I have read statements by people in that Church that make the point that your shared Christology ought to be the measure of closeness between you, which would make this basically a foregone conclusion, though I'm not sure if that makes it a particularly popular one), but then don't you have to wonder all the more in discussions like this when so many of them do not simply go along with being told what they really believe, or why they're really objecting to being told that by someone from outside of their Church who has already made up their own mind where the truth must lie?

As an OO person I am well acquainted with this (subconscious) bias expressed more or less equally by RC and EO alike, but...eh....come on, guys. Admit that you have this. You don't think that there are substantial enough differences in this or that area to make the other side's objections rise to the level of being considered 'real' or treated seriously (or maybe you don't think that there are any objections at all, period), therefore they must be being stubborn. They must really agree at some level, because there's no reason to disagree. Everybody knows that, they just can't admit it. There's no problem with Transubstantiation, or the role of the Roman Pope, or the Tome of Leo, or miaphysitism, or Latinizations, or Byzantinization of the Eastern Chalcedonians, or any of this stuff, so long as they are "properly understood" according to the people who advocate for them, and not according to those who never went along with them in the first place. Those who never went along with them in the first place need to be re-educated so as to "understand them properly", i.e., agree with them as we believe they should.

(If you think this is an unfair characterization of how things actually go, please note that I have included everyone, including myself, as being guilty of this; or better yet, please explain then why we are not all one Church anymore if there really are no disagreements in matters of doctrine, preferably without invoking the supposed 'stubbornness' of everyone who does not see things exactly your way, since that is itself pretty much the definition of stubbornness.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have continued to get very good input honing in on the source of the issue from several priests and a bishop. I think I am finally beginning to better understand. This portion may be the most helpful ...

(From Fr. John)

Since it is His body, and outwardly bread, when we eat it the actual Body of Jesus Christ is united to our body and transfigures us. We literally are united, in a real, physical way, to the Body of Jesus Christ. This is not hocus pocus. It is the action of God to take what is natural and elevate it into reality, and thereby change us as well. HOW the Holy Spirit effects the change doesn't matter. That is what the entire argument about transubstantiation is actually about. If the term is used to simply mean that the gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, then fine, we agree. If it is used to mean that we accept the Aristotelian philosophical underpinnings of that notion, then we don't accept it. But note why. We don't accept it, not necessarily because we think it untrue, but because we cannot say with certainty how God changes the gifts. Now, the be fair, the Catholic Church no longer requires everyone to believe in the philosophical underpinnings of the word transubstantiation, but the word has taken to mean that the gifts are changed into the Body and Blood in a real way. Because of that, you have to be careful and ask what the Catholic means by using the word.

To be perfectly honest, I wasn't seeing the real substantial reason for disagreement either, which is why I stepped back to say "this is what we believe, if you believe this, then we agree". I see now the question is one of WHY we believe. If "transubstantiation" in one's definition includes the Aristotelian philosophizing, then we reject it. If it means simply that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Our Lord by the Holy Spirit, then in essence we agree, as long as everything beyond that is Mystery. I note that Fr said that Catholicism no longer requires Catholics to agree to all of that, so this may well represent one of those cases where Rome has moved closer to Orthodoxy.

I for one am not looking/hoping for differences. I apologize if it has ever seemed that way. If we are the same on something, glory to God! I say that with Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, whoever. Where we are different, I seek to understand. But I think we do a disservice to either inflate or to minimize our differences when we talk about the Church. When we deal with each other as individuals, I much prefer to build on our common beliefs. It depends on exactly what we are discussing.

It seems to me that really, in terms of the Eucharist (not counting a few other things like leavened vs. unleavened, and some lesser points) ... in the very basic question of whether we agree on what the Eucharist IS, the answer is "maybe" ... and it depends on the theology behind the theology in the case of our Latin brother.

I hope this helps clarify a bit?

 

[Erose]

I have continued to get very good input honing in on the source of the issue from several priests and a bishop. I think I am finally beginning to better understand. This portion may be the most helpful ...

(From Fr. John)

Since it is His body, and outwardly bread, when we eat it the actual Body of Jesus Christ is united to our body and transfigures us. We literally are united, in a real, physical way, to the Body of Jesus Christ. This is not hocus pocus. It is the action of God to take what is natural and elevate it into reality, and thereby change us as well. HOW the Holy Spirit effects the change doesn't matter. That is what the entire argument about transubstantiation is actually about. If the term is used to simply mean that the gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, then fine, we agree. If it is used to mean that we accept the Aristotelian philosophical underpinnings of that notion, then we don't accept it. But note why. We don't accept it, not necessarily because we think it untrue, but because we cannot say with certainty how God changes the gifts. Now, the be fair, the Catholic Church no longer requires everyone to believe in the philosophical underpinnings of the word transubstantiation, but the word has taken to mean that the gifts are changed into the Body and Blood in a real way. Because of that, you have to be careful and ask what the Catholic means by using the word.

To be perfectly honest, I wasn't seeing the real substantial reason for disagreement either, which is why I stepped back to say "this is what we believe, if you believe this, then we agree". I see now the question is one of WHY we believe. If "transubstantiation" in one's definition includes the Aristotelian philosophizing, then we reject it. If it means simply that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Our Lord by the Holy Spirit, then in essence we agree, as long as everything beyond that is Mystery. I note that Fr said that Catholicism no longer requires Catholics to agree to all of that, so this may well represent one of those cases where Rome has moved closer to Orthodoxy.

I for one am not looking/hoping for differences. I apologize if it has ever seemed that way. If we are the same on something, glory to God! I say that with Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, whoever. Where we are different, I seek to understand. But I think we do a disservice to either inflate or to minimize our differences when we talk about the Church. When we deal with each other as individuals, I much prefer to build on our common beliefs. It depends on exactly what we are discussing.

It seems to me that really, in terms of the Eucharist (not counting a few other things like leavened vs. unleavened, and some lesser points) ... in the very basic question of whether we agree on what the Eucharist IS, the answer is "maybe" ... and it depends on the theology behind the theology in the case of our Latin brother.

I hope this helps clarify a bit?

Yes and no. Here is the problem that I have with the above statement. They are basing their probable objections upon misinformation that they possess about what the Doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches, and I think that this is where much of the problem comes from. There is no "how" discussed in the doctrine, except to say "by the Holy Spirit". There isn't any underlying Aristotelian philosophy, except in defining the terms used. I.e. "substance" means that which something is, and it must has "being" for a lack of a better word coming to mind. The substance of St. Francis is his humaness. When discussing the term "essence" and the reason why that term wasn't used is that "essences" can and may not have being. For example "white" is an essence, that has no "being". It's existence depends upon something else, i.e. a thing is "white", and "white" cannot exist on its own. Hopefully that makes some sense here. Anyway something that one can be confused about is that there are differing understandings of substance, given which philosophy you adhere to. Modern folks usually consider substance as that which something is made of. That is not the Aristotelian understanding. That which something is made of, is an accident or property. Anyway, I think that the reason for using such a specific term, was so that it would reject the idea that some of the Protestants were teaching that considered Christ's Presence was either just spiritually there, or symbolically there.

I would be interested though in what they think is the Aristotelian philosophy used outside the Fathers of Trent usage of Aristotelian definition of substance and accidents.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes and no. Here is the problem that I have with the above statement. They are basing their probable objections upon misinformation that they possess about what the Doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches, and I think that this is where much of the problem comes from. There is no "how" discussed in the doctrine, except to say "by the Holy Spirit". There isn't any underlying Aristotelian philosophy, except in defining the terms used. I.e. "substance" means that which something is, and it must has "being" for a lack of a better word coming to mind. The substance of St. Francis is his humaness. When discussing the term "essence" and the reason why that term wasn't used is that "essences" can and may not have being. For example "white" is an essence, that has no "being". It's existence depends upon something else, i.e. a thing is "white", and "white" cannot exist on its own. Hopefully that makes some sense here. Anyway something that one can be confused about is that there are differing understandings of substance, given which philosophy you adhere to. Modern folks usually consider substance as that which something is made of. That is not the Aristotelian understanding. That which something is made of, is an accident or property. Anyway, I think that the reason for using such a specific term, was so that it would reject the idea that some of the Protestants were teaching that considered Christ's Presence was either just spiritually there, or symbolically there.

I would be interested though in what they think is the Aristotelian philosophy used outside the Fathers of Trent usage of Aristotelian definition of substance and accidents.

Do you consider St Thomas Aquinas to be authoritative? 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'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.