What are the Orthodox's take on the Protestant Reformation?

[countrymousenc]

He emphasised the fact that it IS the Body and Blood, and he goes "now what do you suppose that tastes like? I said" um...wine with bread, ...

[just pondering] It seems that, for us, symbolism is typology is iconic... The bread and wine, consecrated, become icons of Christ's body and blood, and we know that the icon and what it represents are one. Indeed, what else would Christ taste like?! [/ponder]

 

[Fotina]

[just pondering] It seems that, for us, symbolism is typology is iconic... The bread and wine, consecrated, become icons of Christ's body and blood, and we know that the icon and what it represents are one. Indeed, what else would Christ taste like?! [/ponder]

"O taste and see, that the Lord is good."

It just flashed into my mind.

 

[Theophorus]

The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."

Yes, that seems to sum up a lot of things. The "reality" of the Church of Christ.

 

[Marjorie]

Marjorie,
If you believe in the complete change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, then you by definition believe in Transubstantiation.

Main Entry: tran·sub·stan·ti·a·tion
Pronunciation: -"stan(t)-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : an act or instance of transubstantiating or being transubstantiated
2 : the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine

Blessings,

-Davide

Forgive me, but it seems to me that the writers of the dictionary are not Orthodox theologians and have failed to grasp the nuance here in the Orthodox belief. That happens sometimes in the English-speaking world. :-\

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Maximus]

Forgive me, but it seems to me that the writers of the dictionary are not Orthodox theologians and have failed to grasp the nuance here in the Orthodox belief. That happens sometimes in the English-speaking world. :-\

In IC XC,
Marjorie

One does not have to be an Orthodox theologian to understand the meaning of an English word.

Transubstantiation simply means the complete transformation of one substance into another.

It succinctly expresses what happens to the bread and wine of the Eucharist after the consecration and is not an attempt to peak behind the veil of mystery or to explain how the change occurs. It simply answers the question what?, not how?

Here are the words of St. Nicholas Cabasilas:

"In the first place, the sacrifice is not only an enactment or a symbol, but a real sacrifice. In the second, that which is sacrificed is not bread, but the very Body of Christ. In the third place, the Lamb of God was immolated only once and for all times. The Eucharist sacrifice consists not of the real or blood sacrifice of the Lamb, but in the transformation of bread into the sacrificed Lamb" (Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 32).

Here is what the Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, in his Longer Catechism, had to say:

". . . this none can understand but God; but only this much is signified, that the bread truly, really and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord."

Regarding the alleged "Western Captivity" of the Orthodox Church - are we to suppose it so perverted Christ's Church that she could not get the doctrine of the Eucharist right for nearly 100 years and through three councils and their confessions of faith, from Kiev in 1640 to Jerusalem in 1672 to Constantinople in 1727?

(Those were the dates and places of origin of the three confessions I supplied earlier.)

The Church got the doctrine of the Eucharist so wrong she now needs to borrow the Protestant idea of consubstantiation to explain it?

This is not a matter of nuances. The bread and wine are either completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ or they are not.

Do we receive something less than Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

That is the question.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

The Church got the doctrine of the Eucharist so wrong she now needs to borrow the Protestant idea of consubstantiation to explain it?

I have been assured by my priest that the Orthodox Church does not make any attempt "to explain it" in a formal way. It's not that we necessarily disagree with anyone else's explanation (transubstantiation or consubstantiation), we just refuse to adopt any official explantation of the transformation other than "It's a mystery." Attempting to formulate exactly what happens in order to have it "make sense" is indeed a Western invention.

 

[Maximus]

I have been assured by my priest that the Orthodox Church does not make any attempt "to explain it" in a formal way. It's not that we necessarily disagree with anyone else's explanation (transubstantiation or consubstantiation), we just refuse to adopt any official explantation of the transformation other than "It's a mystery." Attempting to formulate exactly what happens in order to have it "make sense" is indeed a Western invention.

You miss the point.

To say that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are completely transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord is NOT an attempt to "explain it in a formal way."

It is simply a statement of what happens, not how it happens.

Let's put it this way.

In the Eucharist we receive Christ Himself.

Do we also believe that in the Eucharist we receive something that is not Christ?

Besides, you may disagree with me, I am nothing, but what about the Orthodox confessions I supplied before which expressly state that the bread and wine are completely - and not merely partially - transformed?

What of the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, of St. Nicholas Cabasilas, and of the Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow?

If you do not believe the bread and wine are completely transformed, then you believe something else that is not the teaching of the Church.

In the Incarnation, was the Lord Jesus merely a man who contained the Divine Word of God (Nestorianism), or was He Perfect Man and True God, united in One, undivided, Divine Person?

Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ, or is it merely the vehicle that contains Him?

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

You miss the point.

To say that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are completely transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord is NOT an attempt to "explain it in a formal way."

It is simply a statement of what happens, not how it happens.

Let's put it this way.

In the Eucharist we receive Christ Himself.

Do we also believe that in the Eucharist we receive something that is not Christ?

Besides, you may disagree with me, I am nothing, but what about the Orthodox confessions I supplied before which expressly state that the bread and wine are completely - and not merely partially - transformed?

What of the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, of St. Nicholas Cabasilas, and of the Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow?

If you do not believe the bread and wine are completely transformed, then you believe something else that is not the teaching of the Church.

In the Incarnation, was the Lord Jesus merely a man who contained the Divine Word of God (Nestorianism), or was He Perfect Man and True God, united in One, undivided, Divine Person?

Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ, or is it merely the vehicle that contains Him?

I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that I believe the Eucharist is not fully the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course I believe it is completely and fully the Body and Blood of Christ! I'm saying that it does not concern me at all as to how or why it is transformed, except that it is an act of God. I have no disagreement whatsoever with the quotes you provided.

 

[Maximus]

"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ" (St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized).

". . . the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 19:7).

 

[Maximus]

I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that I believe the Eucharist is not fully the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course I believe it is completely and fully the Body and Blood of Christ! I'm saying that it does not concern me at all as to how or why it is transformed, except that it is an act of God. I have no disagreement whatsoever with the quotes you provided.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

It seemed to me you were saying that since we cannot fully explain the Eucharist, it is okay to believe that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the epiklesis.

If, as you say, you believe in the complete transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, then we agree.

I wasn't trying to answer the question how? - the answer to that is a mystery - I was only trying to show what happens, and that the Lord and His saints have answered for us.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Maximus]

"6. Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouch-safed to thee." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22:6).

"9. Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ"(St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22:8).

 

[countrymousenc]

Perhaps it would be helpful to re-post part of what Fr. Thomas Hopko wrote: [emphasis mine]

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

Fr. Thomas seems to think that: (1)Christian thinking (in the West?) became polarized into two inadequate or incomplete positions, and (2) his last sentence here is very clear about the loss of the Eastern symbol/reality relationship.

Either I'm missing the boat, or everything in Orthodoxy is iconic, and the symbol/reality relationship is sacred and essential. I think this may be the primary reason many of us have some difficulty with the concept of transubstantiation. We do not object to the notion of change, but to the notion of something being taken away in the change, and transubstantiation carries that kind of connotation even if such connotation is not intended. To us, I think, the change is a making whole, with no losses, and, as Fr. Thomas said, two things becoming one. It is incarnational. This is not consubstantiation, either, since in that, the two things continue to exist side by side, but not as one.

 

[Maximus]

I think the teaching of the Church is clear and unambiguous.

No one is trying to take away mystery or symbolism or anything else in saying the bread and wine are completely transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

On the contrary, the transformation is an essential part of the mystery.

As I said before, the question is:

Do we receive something less than Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

 

[countrymousenc]

I think the teaching of the Church is clear and unambiguous.

So do I, Maximus. I'm not arguing that it isn't.

Do we receive something less than Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

Definitely not! And I don't think any of us have intentionally said that we do. But that's just how I've read it.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Perhaps it would be helpful to re-post part of what Fr. Thomas Hopko wrote: [emphasis mine]

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

Fr. Thomas seems to think that: (1)Christian thinking (in the West?) became polarized into two inadequate or incomplete positions, and (2) his last sentence here is very clear about the loss of the Eastern symbol/reality relationship.

Either I'm missing the boat, or everything in Orthodoxy is iconic, and the symbol/reality relationship is sacred and essential. I think this may be the primary reason many of us have some difficulty with the concept of transubstantiation. We do not object to the notion of change, but to the notion of something being taken away in the change, and transubstantiation carries that kind of connotation even if such connotation is not intended. To us, I think, the change is a making whole, with no losses, and, as Fr. Thomas said, two things becoming one. It is incarnational. This is not consubstantiation, either, since in that, the two things continue to exist side by side, but not as one.

Very nicely put! I wish I could rep. you.

 

[Plan 9]

I have been assured by my priest that the Orthodox Church does not make any attempt "to explain it" in a formal way. It's not that we necessarily disagree with anyone else's explanation (transubstantiation or consubstantiation), we just refuse to adopt any official explantation of the transformation other than "It's a mystery." Attempting to formulate exactly what happens in order to have it "make sense" is indeed a Western invention.

It is a Western invention, and is misapplied all too often under the guise of "theology". God's mysterys are just that. To understand them, we would either have to ascend to God's level, or reduce him to ours. The first is impossible, and the other is a huge mistake, which we make far too often.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It is a Western invention, and is misapplied all too often under the guise of "theology". God's mysterys are just that. To understand them, we would either have to ascend to God's level, or reduce him to ours. The first is impossible, and the other is a huge mistake, which we make far too often.

Plan 9 speaks wisely.....

Forgive me....

 

[Plan 9]

Plan 9 speaks wisely.....

Forgive me....

Of course, we all want to understand as much as possible, and I believe that God wants this for us.
It's only that there are some things regarding his nature and his acts which can't be comprehended by the intellect.

 

[countrymousenc]

Plan 9, you should emerge more often.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Of course, we all want to understand as much as possible, and I believe that God wants this for us.
It's only that there are some things regarding his nature and his acts which can't be comprehended by the intellect.

I am strongly attracted to "seven of nine". So much that I cant bare to look at her.

I would much rather see a picture of you than her....


Forgive me....