Dear friends in TAW:
My dear Internet friend, Brian Daniel, asked a question over in OBOB about transubstantiation which I will quote here, as I too would like to hear what the TAW scholars have to say:
If you will refer to our previous TAW thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t92705&page=1
http://www.christianforums.com/t44752&page=6
You will discover that the Orthodox also accept Transubstantiation, but not defined to the point as the Catholics do. With this point of view, what arguments do the Orthodox have here?
Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth
My dear Internet friend, Brian Daniel, asked a question over in OBOB about transubstantiation which I will quote here, as I too would like to hear what the TAW scholars have to say:
Brian Daniel said:Question about transubstantiation
This is a question seeking nothing more than the Roman Catholic response to this argument against transubstantiation. I am not attacking the doctrine in this post, but I am looking for information to evaluate the strengths of the argument.
The argument was that the omnipresence of Christ's physical body and blood in transubstantiation confuses the two natures of Christ by applying an attribute of the divine nature to the human nature. According to Chalcedon, Jesus is one Christ, with two unconfused natures. What arguments are there against this, and what do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of this argument? I promise that I won't give a rebuttal.
If you will refer to our previous TAW thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t92705&page=1
http://www.christianforums.com/t44752&page=6
You will discover that the Orthodox also accept Transubstantiation, but not defined to the point as the Catholics do. With this point of view, what arguments do the Orthodox have here?
Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth