Apotheoun Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Interesting, but I would not put it the way you have. I would say that we receive Christ in the Eucharist, or to be more precise, the incarnate risen Christ, He who has died, but who can never again die, and through communion in His body and blood we are united to the Father and the Holy Spirit with Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linate Posted October 15, 2013 Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 do the easterners, or many of them, or how many, consider the elements to be the "body and blood" of Christ? i like the idea of merely say they are christ and leaving the rest a mystery... but i suppose like the rest of westerners, i'm too prone to rationalistic thoughts, reductive reasoning etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I think that the Roman Catholic Church defined the term "transubstantiation" because - unlike in the East - various people in the West denied the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, and so to protect the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist the Roman Church formulated an explanation for how Christ's presence could be possible. The formulation of "transubstantiation" is a different approach based on the historical necessity of defending the reality of Christ's presence in the consecrated elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) do the easterners, or many of them, or how many, consider the elements to be the "body and blood" of Christ? As far as I know all the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches believe that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ. In the Eucharistic anaphora both the institution narrative, which concerns the offering of Christ's body and blood as a sacrifice, and the epiclesis (i.e., the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the elements), speak of the elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. In the liturgy we recall not only Christ's passion and death, but also His resurrection, ascension, and glorious second coming, which is why we hold that the presence of Christ in the elements is that of the risen and glorified Lord. Edited October 15, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linate Posted October 15, 2013 Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 kind of like how the west always has to have an answer for everything. or how they formulated the substitutionary penal theory as they deemed it the best explanation for atonement, even though other theories were already present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linate Posted October 15, 2013 Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 if they believe in the "body and blood" then why would they refrain from going along with transubstantiation? or is it more that body and blood are present, but trying to pin it down is a no go? or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 kind of like how the west always has to have an answer for everything. or how they formulated the substitutionary penal theory as they deemed it the best explanation for atonement, even though other theories were already present. The West likes to define things, while the East is happier with the mystery. But that is not to say that the East does not like to have doctrinal formulations too, because all seven of the Ecumenical Councils include a decree (ηοÏος). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 if they believe in the "body and blood" then why would they refrain from going along with transubstantiation? or is it more that body and blood are present, but trying to pin it down is a no go? or? Because it's a mystery, and to an eastern Christian, what is important is that a change does in fact take place, and that we believe, in faith, that they are the body and blood of Christ. We're just not all that interested in the specific whys and hows is all. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means there's no need for us to have it, we feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linate Posted October 15, 2013 Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 so, as asked, it's the pinning it down thing that's a no go. does that leave open an orthodox who would say the elements "are Christ" but chooses not to get into "body and blood" or not? if the body and blood are felt and part of the unspoken mystery, could it be open to interpretation or at least the issue solemnly not spoken of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 does that leave open an orthodox who would say the elements "are Christ" but chooses not to get into "body and blood" or not? if the body and blood are felt and part of the unspoken mystery, could it be open to interpretation or at least the issue solemnly not spoken of? No, because the prayers themselves speak (constantly) of the elements as the body and blood of Christ. In Orthodoxy: the rule of prayer determines the rule of belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linate Posted October 16, 2013 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 if i were an orthodox that thought the following, would it be okay?... "God is love. the father is love. in receiving the eucharist, i receive the Son, in full body blood soul and divinity. Jesus said he and the father are one. love incarnate. the word made flesh. the holy spirit is is like the bond between the father and son. and is God." etc etc. a lot of these thoughts I think were talked about by JPII and delved into with the theology of the body even. trinity is sort of a nonrational thing, 'the son is God, the father is God, the son is not the father' etc etc. so it might not neceessarily make rational sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) so, as asked, it's the pinning it down thing that's a no go. does that leave open an orthodox who would say the elements "are Christ" but chooses not to get into "body and blood" or not? if the body and blood are felt and part of the unspoken mystery, could it be open to interpretation or at least the issue solemnly not spoken of? That Christ is fully present body,heart,soul and divinity in the host is a matter of infallible faith and morals for the holy catholic church and is not open to interpretation, though what Christ reveals personally and communally through his most precious body and blood perhaps is up to interpretation. Edited October 16, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) if i were an orthodox that thought the following, would it be okay?... "God is love. the father is love. in receiving the eucharist, i receive the Son, in full body blood soul and divinity. Jesus said he and the father are one. love incarnate. the word made flesh. the holy spirit is is like the bond between the father and son. and is God." etc etc. a lot of these thoughts I think were talked about by JPII and delved into with the theology of the body even. trinity is sort of a nonrational thing, 'the son is God, the father is God, the son is not the father' etc etc. so it might not neceessarily make rational sense. It is good that you are thinking about the relationship between the father,son and holy spirit. :) Ultimately in exactness it is a total mystery although in this life i have found he reveals bits and pieces of that eternal mystery over time in my personal relationship with him and my communal relationship with him. I guess that kind of reflects the 2 natures of the Christ, man and God, communal and individual :) We need both relationships they co exist, one without the other is incomplete. Edited October 16, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 if i were an orthodox that thought the following, would it be okay?... "God is love. the father is love. in receiving the eucharist, i receive the Son, in full body blood soul and divinity. Jesus said he and the father are one. love incarnate. the word made flesh. the holy spirit is is like the bond between the father and son. and is God." etc etc. a lot of these thoughts I think were talked about by JPII and delved into with the theology of the body even. trinity is sort of a nonrational thing, 'the son is God, the father is God, the son is not the father' etc etc. so it might not neceessarily make rational sense. No, the Orthodox would not describe the Holy Spirit as the "bond of love" between the Father and the Son. Love is a common divine energy, and so each of the three persons possesses that divine attribute equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linate Posted October 16, 2013 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 i did see that 'bond of love' point being the weakest in my ideas. but JPII has said things very similar if not exact as that. i do realize that you are not keen on accepting everything from the roman church. in fact, the first search i did on theology of the body, and the trinity, noted something very similar. "The love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father exists. It is God the Holy Spirit. The love that is the exchange of Persons between the Father and the Son is the Life that is the Spirit, with no beginning and no end. The Creed affirms that the Third Person of the Trinity is coequal with and proceeds from the Father and the Son." that is similar to what i said. The spirit is the bond, yet also God. but i do acknowledge that the Spirit is more than just a bond. in that article i quoted, they even were talking about the Father being identified by the Son. "The perfect self-knowledge of the Father exists. It is God the Son." it is all an attempt to position them as comingling, much like the giving of selves and comingling of person with sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now