Transubstantiation

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Then what is the Eastern Orthodox definition of Ancestral Sin? Was it removed from an infant during baptism (I ask this because the council of Carthage, which was accepted by the quinisext council of Trullo, anathematized the notion that infant baptism does not removed Ancestral Sin)?

it's the sin of Adam which enslaves us to corruption and death. baptism frees us from that.
 
Upvote 0

trulytheone

Active Member
Mar 8, 2019
181
43
Luzon
✟21,368.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
it's the sin of Adam which enslaves us to corruption and death. baptism frees us from that.
Then, what's the difference between the states of being baptized and being unbaptized, since two persons with these states would still die and be resurrected on the Day of Judgement?
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Then, what's the difference between the states of being baptized and being unbaptized, since two persons with these states would still die and be resurrected on the Day of Judgement?

being enslaved to death and corruption for the 80ish years in this life is never preferable to being freed from it for those 80 years.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: trulytheone
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Hello,

In another thread elsewhere there is a discussion of the Eucharist going on. It was posited that the Orthodox believe in Transubstantiation and I said that I believe the Orthodox do no believe in Transubstantiation. I would like to know if I am wrong. The discussion was between me an @Andrewn
St. Raphael said the term substantantiation can be employed but without any scientific explanation. St. Raphael of Brooklyn further explained that the term used in Orthodoxy is to "transmute". The greek word used by St.Dositheos of Jerusalem in 1672 was something to the effect of metousiosis ( verb form of metaousios).
There were other words used in the first millennium to describe the change of bread and wine. Including divinization, transelementation, mutation, completion etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: charsan
Upvote 0

Stabat Mater dolorosa

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
17,708
8,068
Somewhere up North
✟293,971.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Traditional. Cath.
Marital Status
Single
Definitely what everyone else said. I would also say, please don't ask us the details of how it is. One who prys too much into the Holy Mysteries always gets distracted from the path of salvation and often falls into heresy.

The temptation is to compete with secular scholasticism to impress people and hopefully gain converts, but we need to know when to say, "let's not go there, brother." (I am hearing this in the voice of my Dogmatic Theology professor- it's hilarious!)

I will say, that in the West, the whole debate began with the Catholic idea of the Real Presence and how the Protestants responded to that. The whole argument became about literal ("real") vs. symbolic ("not real"). I have heard Orthodox priests saying it can be understood as symbolic, but it depends on how you define "symbol". From the Greek it is "joining together"- kind of like dia-bolic is "to separate". So we could say it is taking a spiritual reality (which this world often equates with "not real" because it can't be scientifically verified) and a physical reality (also REAL) and through that, the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Christ- truly. Yet, it still appears to be bread and wine to the 5 senses. We should also understand that it is the glorified Body and Blood of Christ, not the crucified.

I believe Luther were quite close to the Orthodox understanding of the consecration of holy communion. He too rejected the use of philosophy in describing the transformation, thus he landed on consubstation or real presence.

Luther is well known for his Tertullian-linked approach to mixing philosophy and theology together. The very term and its content dates back to aristotelian philosophy and its implementation into catholicism under the influence of the great scholastic St. Thomas Aquino in the 13th century.

Thomas had a very bright mind. That being said that doesnt necessarily means it should've been implemented into our eucharistic theology.
Well, in this case I see no harm though.

In practice it means that we do eucharistic adoration which is non existing elsewhere, but except from this it's no big deal.

The basics are the same between EO, RCC and Lutheranism. It remains bread and wine, but it's also the body and blood of Christ after consecration.
 
Upvote 0