Fully Bread Fully God

[agiosotheos]

Originally Posted by mardukm

St. Paul teaches us that at the Resurrection of the dead, Christ shed his mortal (i.e., animal) nature. His humanity has been divinized. There is absolutely nothing of the animal nature left in Christ. However, Christ is said to be "human" still because of his human soul.

Again, WTF??

[agiosotheos]

Originally Posted by mardukm

If you don’t believe form and essence are distinguishable, how do you suppose the Fathers were able to distinguish between ousia and hypostasis?

How are these two sets of distinctions related?

[agiosotheos]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Christ’s resurrected body in its essence (or substance) is nothing like the essence of our own mortal bodies.

[agiosotheos]

Originally Posted by mardukm

unless you can say your own body cannot die, unless you can say your own body can defy the laws of gravity, unless you can say that your own body can walk through walls, unless you can say your own body can be in a thousand of places at once, etc., etc.

These are properties of grace that are possessed as gifts because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are not a matter of the fundamental nature of our humanity. God enables us to supersede our limitations by grace, not by an actual change of our nature.

[agiosotheos]

Originally Posted by mardukm

As stated, the Alexandrian, Cappadocian and Latin anthropologies on this issue are basically the same – man was created with a corruptible nature, but was immortal in Paradise only because of Grace. When Adam and Eve sinned, man’s nature did not change to become subject to death. What happened was that it merely lost the GRACE of immortality and was thus subject to its NATURAL state of corruptibility and death. Like I said earlier, I don’t know what is the patristic source of your idea that man’s nature was CHANGED because of the Fall. The Fathers indeed – rather unanimously – state that man was subject to death because of the Fall, but I am not aware of ANY ancient patristic source that claims that man was CHANGED to become subject to death because of the Fall.

I was made familiar with this teaching primarily by the teachings of Severus of Antioch. Yet this is the exact premise upon which I am made uncomfortable with the way you speak of the resurrection. If the Fall was not a change of our nature and was simply a loss of the incorruptibility that was granted as a gift of grace, then why do you speak of the resurrected bodies as CHANGED in essence instead of just applying the same process, that we have been returned to incorruptibility by being restored to sanctifying grace without our fundamental nature being changed?

[agiosotheos]

Originally Posted by mardukm

(CONTINUED)

Again, the ESSENCE of Christ’s body is nothing like ours,

Both the Council of Chalcedon (for the EO and RC) and the Third Council of Ephesus (for the OO) explicitly stated that Christ's humanity (the integration of soul and body) is homoousios to us.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by agiosotheos

He said that it is an acceptable theologumenon, not a dogma.

And I'm asking to see an authoritative Eastern Orthodox source that says this is an acceptable theologumenon. I've never seen such a thought from any traditional Eastern Orthodox authority or Father.

It doesn't have to be dogmatically declared against to be outside the historical stream of Orthodoxy.

Peace and God bless!

[Alethiaphile]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

And I'm asking to see an authoritative Eastern Orthodox source that says this is an acceptable theologumenon. I've never seen such a thought from any traditional Eastern Orthodox authority or Father.

St. Irenaeus is a traditional Eastern Orthodox (and Catholic) Father:
For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, **consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly**; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by Alethiaphile

St. Irenaeus is a traditional Eastern Orthodox (and Catholic) Father:
For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, **consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly**; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

That doesn't prove what you say it does. The notion of transubstantiation also says that there is an Earthly reality, namely the accidents of bread and wine. I'm surprised you don't realize that since it's in every definition of transubstantiation.

My point is that this does not show any belief that there is both bread and Christ present in the Eucharist, at least not in the sense of transubstantiation. Obviously the Eucharist is both Earthly and Heavenly, otherwise we wouldn't perceive it at all. What I'm looking for is an unambiguous statement that bread remains after the consecration; that would somewhat demonstrate that the belief has been accepted at some point.

Peace and God bless!

[JohnVIII]

Perhaps it is "an acceptable theologumenon, not a dogma" from an EO point of view to believe that the Eucharist is true bread and true Christ, but if so it's only because the EO never officially fully defined the dogma of the Eucharist. If EO did so on their own apart from the Roman Catholic I'm sure they would conclude much the same thing as did the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the Eucharist. If we had remained one church perhaps this would never be an issue. But now for the EO to have an official dogma of any sort proclaimed which agrees with the Roman Catholic position would be too big of a step towards reunion than what the EO are ready for at this time.

I'm sure you'll never find anywhere "an unambiguous statement that bread remains after the consecration" simply because it is not true. Was it okay to believe in Arianism before the Nicene Creed was written? I don't think so! Let's not create a heresy just because we want to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church! - even if it is "acceptable theologumenon".

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by JohnVIII

Perhaps it is "an acceptable theologumenon, not a dogma" from an EO point of view to believe that the Eucharist is true bread and true Christ, but if so it's only because the EO never officially fully defined the dogma of the Eucharist. If EO did so on their own apart from the Roman Catholic I'm sure they would conclude much the same thing as did the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the Eucharist. If we had remained one church perhaps this would never be an issue. But now for the EO to have an official dogma of any sort proclaimed which agrees with the Roman Catholic position would be too big of a step towards reunion than what the EO are ready for at this time.

I'm sure you'll never find anywhere "an unambiguous statement that bread remains after the consecration" simply because it is not true. Was it okay to believe in Arianism before the Nicene Creed was written? I don't think so! Let's not create a heresy just because we want to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church! - even if it is "acceptable theologumenon".

This is pretty much precisely my thinking, only stated much more clearly. My reason for saying what I've said is simply to point out that just because the issue hasn't be dogmatized and theologized to death doesn't mean the question itself is up in the air.

I think it's good that there isn't a pressing need in the East to define every issue down to minutiae, but I also think that in this discussion here there has been a tendency by some to adopt the very definition-crazy mindset so often criticized of the West in order to say "it's not been defined, so it's an open issue". It smacks of the same thinking as those in the West who say that since it hasn't been "dogmatically defined" that women can't be priests, it's still an open question, or that those that say Mary may not have died since the "dogmatic portion" of the text defining the Assumption doesn't explicitely say "death" even though the whole rest of the document talks about her dying. No Eastern Orthodox/Catholic should accept such a perspective on ordination or the Assumption, and it's just as erroneous an approach with the Eucharist.

Peace and God bless!

[agiosotheos]

Bottom of the page:

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/in...sk=view&id=361

[Formosus]

Agiosotheos

Perhaps instead of using offensive language to Mardukum you could ask him to better explain the distinctions he is making.

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by Formosus

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1#EUCHARIST

This is from a Russian Orthodox catechism on Met. Hilarion Alfeyev's website. It makes no mention of bread remaining, but makes plenty of reference of it being transformed and becoming the Real Flesh and Blood of Christ.

I have heard Orthodox Christians speak of it remaining bread. It is the body of Christ but that doesn't imply that bread no longer exists. They would probably say that becoming or transformation doesn't necessarily mean that it ceases to be bread but rather that it has become something new.

But my conception of the attitude is that it just isn't an issue. It is the west that questions the existence of bread after the consecration, not the east. It is the west that also had the problem with those who rejected the real presence. Why can't there be paradox in reality? If you want everything to be rationally explained then you won't like the eastern perspective because there is plenty of room for paradox.

[Formosus]

I think its just as much of a paradox (if not more) to suggest that the Bread and Wine no longer exist when it is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.