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

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I disagree the nothing changes part, even when paired with the "something changes". Even if it is still bread / wine and also the Body and Blood of Christ - it is fully sanctified. To say nothing changes implies much less of a mystery and more of purely symbolic change. The bread and wine mystically changes...and rest assured, it does change. Even with Baptism - the water changes. It becomes Holy. We can't just toss the bread and wine after the Eucharist, as it is sanctified and Holy.

Personally, I believe exactly what the liturgy says, which does say it is changed by the Holy Spirit. Certainly it is a mystery, and I think there are differences in the RCC s Orthodox understanding...but we do believe 100% that there is a change.

Updated my post for clarity.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

When we go through a spiritual change, brought on by The Holy Spirit, do we notice visible physical changes?

IOW ~ Being moved by The Holy Spirit does not change our appearance.

Forgive me...

 

[Erose]

Essence is that which makes something what it is. Substance is that out of which something is made. My essence is my humanity.

You must remember that we are discussing Aristotelian substance here, which is what you would call essence it seems.

 

[All4Christ]

You must remember that we are discussing Aristotelian substance here, which is what you would call essence it seems.

Is Neo-Aristotelian philosophy different than Aristotelian philosophy? All I've read with Aristotelian philosophy discusses substance in three ways, matter, form or a combination of the two. His definition of essence is what I wrote above.

 

[Erose]

Thanks. I still would distinguish between matter, substance and essence myself. I didn't mean to imply substance to be the same as the matter which makes up something ("physical substance")

Aristotle did distinguish between essence and substance. In regards to essence: "The essence of a thing is what it is said to be in respect of itself".

On the other hand, he gave three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree: matter, form and composite of form and matter.

Did Neo-Aristotelian philosophy change this?

All that said, I digress....

Not really. You have to understand that Aristotle had more than one understanding of substance. One is found in his writing called Categories and the others are found in Metaphysics (which are (if I remember correctly) primary and secondary). It is what is discussed in Metaphysics that is in question here. Here is a link to better understand substance vs accidents: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html

 

[Erose]

Is Neo-Aristotelian philosophy different than Aristotelian philosophy? All I've read with Aristotelian philosophy discusses substance in three ways, matter, form or a combination of the two. His definition of essence is what I wrote above.

Here is another link to clarify the understanding of the topic: Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Go down to section 7 in this link to understand Aristotle's relationship between essence and substance, which for the most part is identical except that some essences cannot be substances. Aristotle's Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[All4Christ]

Not really. You have to understand that Aristotle had more than one understanding of substance. One is found in his writing called Categories and the others are found in Metaphysics (which are (if I remember correctly) primary and secondary). It is what is discussed in Metaphysics that is in question here. Here is a link to better understand substance vs accidents: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html

OK, I have read much that description from aquinasonline.com before as well. Aquinas also discusses essence in some of his works. I understand the difference between substance and accidents. However, substance covers more than just the essence or the core of what something is. There are primary substances, secondary, compound, etc. It is not very precise. Essence can be defined as form or substance, but substance does not always equate to essence. It's kind of like the square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square.

"Nature is seen to signify the essence of a thing according as it has relation to its proper operation" (De ente et essentia, cap. i). ~St Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas taught that substances are what are is primarily said to exist. Substances are what have existence - yet there are not considered to be identical with existence. Essence, however, is what possesses existence. Essentially, substances are essence / existence composites.

Aquinas: Metaphysics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Essence and Existence

Accidents are incidental, and cannot exist without the substance, but the substance exists even if the accidents change.

Would you disagree with this?

 

[All4Christ]

This is the problem with philosophical explanations imho. It tries to go too far into explaining it. Essence vs Substance vs Existence....

It is a mystery that cannot be fully explained.

Here is another link to clarify the understanding of the topic: Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Go down to section 7 in this link to understand Aristotle's relationship between essence and substance, which for the most part is identical except that some essences cannot be substances. Aristotle's Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

These seem to confirm what I said in my post above. A substance in its most primary form can be its essence, but it is not necessarily just the essence.

Trans"substantiation" allows for understanding of more than just the essence being changed. It is not identical to a change of essence.

 

[Erose]

A couple of Church Fathers who explicitly taught transubstantiation:

St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries Ch 9) 54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat Lec 19:7b ) For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ

What this does not say is important also. As it is, it is totally agreeable from both sides.

Forgive me...

 

[All4Christ]

A couple of Church Fathers who explicitly taught transubstantiation:

St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries Ch 9) 54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat Lec 19:7b ) For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ

I agree with both of these. I do not believe this explains it in philosophical terms, and does not conflict with what we Orthodox teach. Substance vs Essence vs form vs matter....these quotes don't touch philosophy and don't go beyond the mystery of its change.

 

[Erose]

OK, I have read much that description from aquinasonline.com before as well. Aquinas also discusses essence in some of his works. I understand the difference between substance and accidents. However, substance covers more than just the essence or the core of what something is. There are primary substances, secondary, compound, etc. It is not very precise. Essence can be defined as form or substance, but substance does not always equate to essence. It's kind of like the square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square.

"Nature is seen to signify the essence of a thing according as it has relation to its proper operation" (De ente et essentia, cap. i). ~St Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas taught that substances are what are is primarily said to exist. Substances are what have existence - yet there are not considered to be identical with existence. Essence, however, is what possesses existence. Essentially, substances are essence / existence composites.

Aquinas: Metaphysics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Essence and Existence

Accidents are incidental, and cannot exist without the substance, but the substance exists even if the accidents change.

Would you disagree with this?

Just to clarify just a little. The primary difference between substance and essence here is that accidents have essence as well as substance. There is an essence of the color blue, but the color blue is not a substance in itself. It requires something else to exist. In other words you must first have a thing that is blue before you can have the color blue, but you cannot have blue without a thing being blue. Hopefully that makes sense a little.

So back to the OP, when we are discussing the change of substances, we are not speaking about physical material or matter. We are only speaking of a change in what IS.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not really. You have to understand that Aristotle had more than one understanding of substance. One is found in his writing called Categories and the others are found in Metaphysics (which are (if I remember correctly) primary and secondary). It is what is discussed in Metaphysics that is in question here. Here is a link to better understand substance vs accidents: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html

Essence, substance, accidents, differences in philosophical schools of thought. This is exactly why we do not go into these types of discussions, and the difference between us. Forgive me, but from our point of view it is simply unnecessary, it reaches a point of being unknowable, and if we do not know where that point is and continue explaining, we walk right into potential error and don't even realize it.

A couple of Church Fathers who explicitly taught transubstantiation:

St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries Ch 9) 54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat Lec 19:7b ) For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ

It does change. It does become. We know full well that we bring bread and wine into the Church - our gifts being brought in. We know we receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the Eucharist. This is all we need to say, all we can say.

Forgive me, it is not anti-intellectualism. It reminds me if we were for example discussing Life, what it is composed of, how we have it, when we have it, how it changes. Catholics don't explain that, do they? Does it sound like wrong philosophizing to define all of this, perhaps? If it does, then maybe you might understand what we see in all of this discussion?

 

[Erose]

What this does not say is important also. As it is, it is totally agreeable from both sides.

Forgive me...

What you have is two Saints saying that before the consecration you have mundane bread and wine, after the consecration you have the Body and Blood of the Lord, and only that.

 

[All4Christ]

Just to clarify just a little. The primary difference between substance and essence here is that accidents have essence as well as substance. There is an essence of the color blue, but the color blue is not a substance in itself. It requires something else to exist. In other words you must first have a thing that is blue before you can have the color blue, but you cannot have blue without a thing being blue. Hopefully that makes sense a little.

So back to the OP, when we are discussing the change of substances, we are not speaking about physical material or matter. We are only speaking of a change in what IS.

How many RC Christians truly understand what substance means? There are even different understandings within various schools of philosophy for the same words. For the average person, it seems like it would confuse more than clarify.

 

[Erose]

I agree with both of these. I do not believe this explains it in philosophical terms, and does not conflict with what we Orthodox teach. Substance vs Essence vs form vs matter....these quotes don't touch philosophy and don't go beyond the mystery of its change.

And quite frankly all that transubstantiation does is explain in philosophical term what we experience, so no it doesn't go beyond that mystery.

I really am confused why you guys keep ADDING to the doctrine of transubstantiation to rebuke it.

 

[Erose]

How many RC Christians truly understand what substance means? There are even different understandings within various schools of philosophy for the same words. For the average person, it seems like it would confuse more than clarify.

Well it is called catechesis for one, and two most don't really go beyond the fact that what they are receiving in the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What you have is two Saints saying that before the consecration you have mundane bread and wine, after the consecration you have the Body and Blood of the Lord, and only that.

Oh... I must have missed the "only that" part.

Forgive me...

 

[Erose]

Oh... I must have missed the "only that" part.

Forgive me...

You must have.

 

[Erose]

I must leave this debate until tomorrow. Good conversation we are having I think.