Confession of Peter Moghila


#1

Dear Orthodox,

I read a very brief statement on this Confession that described it as the approved Orthodox profession of faith most closely aligned to Latin theology. I have not read the Confession myself. I am interested to know what points of this Confession are closely aligned to Latin theology.

Thanks,

Greg


#2

Petro Mohyla was Metropolit Kyiv in 16th century, who although a Modovan aristocrat was famous Ukrainian at time of Rech Pospolita control of Ukraine. He founded famous Mohyla Academy in Kyiv which taught in Latin, ordered trybnyk and wrote his famous confession of Eastern church. Criticized by many because uses the word “transubstantiation” to describe Divine Liturgy and considers idea of priest’s “intent” at divine Liturgy. These ciriticized by many Orthodox as being a Catholic trojan horse. But Ukrainian Orthodox are still very close to Petro Mohyla. Russian Orthodox mostly are not although in Russia sometimes admirers of Mohyla called Filo-catholic…


#3

[quote=Volodymyr]Petro Mohyla was Metropolit Kyiv in 16th century, who although a Modovan aristocrat was famous Ukrainian at time of Rech Pospolita control of Ukraine. He founded famous Mohyla Academy in Kyiv which taught in Latin, ordered trybnyk and wrote his famous confession of Eastern church. Criticized by many because uses the word “transubstantiation” to describe Divine Liturgy and considers idea of priest’s “intent” at divine Liturgy. These ciriticized by many Orthodox as being a Catholic trojan horse. But Ukrainian Orthodox are still very close to Petro Mohyla. Russian Orthodox mostly are not although in Russia sometimes admirers of Mohyla called Filo-catholic…
[/quote]

We dont necessarily reject the word “Transubstantiation” because it is a western terminology of what happens on the altar at Liturgy. We reject it because it is the results of the western mindset to literally disect all the mysteries of the church into some sort of intelligible understanding. It is this incesant scholastic endeavor to explain everything which cannot really be expained. We accept the fact that the species of bread and wine are changed during the Epiclesis by the invocation of the Holy Spirit and for us, thats it. Those Orthodox who clamor for the need to have this explained do not really appreciate their Traditions. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the “T” word isnt valid its just that we dont think its a necessary additive to the faith.

StMarkEofE


#4

Petro Mohyla did not of course use “T” word but rather Slavic precuschestvleniye, a “P” word.


#5

[quote=StMarkEofE]We dont necessarily reject the word “Transubstantiation” because it is a western terminology of what happens on the altar at Liturgy. We reject it because it is the results of the western mindset to literally disect all the mysteries of the church into some sort of intelligible understanding. It is this incesant scholastic endeavor to explain everything which cannot really be expained. We accept the fact that the species of bread and wine are changed during the Epiclesis by the invocation of the Holy Spirit and for us, thats it. Those Orthodox who clamor for the need to have this explained do not really appreciate their Traditions. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the “T” word isnt valid its just that we dont think its a necessary additive to the faith.

StMarkEofE
[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that the terminology of transustantiation came about as the result of a “western mindset to literally disect all the mysteries of the Church…” In fact the term came about as a result of “Reformed” heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist (which happened to occur in the West, but not in the East). I would say that it is more properly the result of the Church tradition of only defining things in order to correct heresy.

This is the same process which led to the terminology of homoousion at Nicaea in order to refute Arianism, or the terminology of the hypostatic union promulgated at Chalcedon in order to refute such heresies as Monophysitism or Nestorianism.

Remember, transubstantiation as a definition did not come about until the 16th Century. If there was no heresy to combat there would have been no need to define what happens during consecration, and I’m extremely confident that it would not have been promulgated.

Sorry for the thread hijack, you are now returned to your regularly scheduled discussion…


#6

Bishop Ware writes a little bit about his confession in “The Orthodox Church” which is available online here

The pertinant chapter is the second part of "The Church under Islam here, about halfway down the page.

John.


#7

I think that “Reformed” heresies that you speak of occured at time of Luther in 16th century. Word Transubstantiation already used by Toma Akvinsky in his Summa Theologica On Eucharist. This term is a so-called “scholasticism” which is an attempt to give a name to a Mystery. Eastern Church tries not to give names to Mysteries other than Mysteries if not needed. In thirteenth century Toma Akvinsky was just pondering deeply but not by necessity of “Reformers”.


#8

Although not the primary focus of this thread, let me provide a little clarification on the term “transubstantiation.” This term was first used by Hildebert of Tours in the 12th century. In a sense, this was a formal response to the teachings of Berengarius of Tours who had denied the real presence (10th century). Later, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) would accept this term as the correct way of defining what happened at the consecration. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) simply took a term already in use.

Deacon Ed


#9

[quote=Volodymyr]I think that “Reformed” heresies that you speak of occured at time of Luther in 16th century. Word Transubstantiation already used by Toma Akvinsky in his Summa Theologica On Eucharist. This term is a so-called “scholasticism” which is an attempt to give a name to a Mystery. Eastern Church tries not to give names to Mysteries other than Mysteries if not needed. In thirteenth century Toma Akvinsky was just pondering deeply but not by necessity of “Reformers”.
[/quote]

Toma Akvinsky? Do you LOVE it! :bounce:


#10

Father Eduard:

Thank you for information. But it still seems that Latin theologians are often trying to explain mysteries not by any necessity but believing that such a big word implies a deeper understanding. If such a term was created in l2th century to explain 10th Century Berengerius of Tours heresy, is this really by necessity?? Do you understand better the Mystery of Eucharist, let alone understand what is the “substance” of a thing because of such a word??


#11

[quote=Volodymyr]Father Eduard:

Thank you for information. But it still seems that Latin theologians are often trying to explain mysteries not by any necessity but believing that such a big word implies a deeper understanding. If such a term was created in l2th century to explain 10th Century Berengerius of Tours heresy, is this really by necessity?? Do you understand better the Mystery of Eucharist, let alone understand what is the “substance” of a thing because of such a word??
[/quote]

Actually, Deacon Ed beat me in correcting my post (lost the cable connection). Although, there is a minor correction of his…Hildebert of Tours and Beregarius of Tours were more or less contemporaries, as Beregarius died in 1088, while Hildebert’s use of “transubstantiation” is put at c. 1079. Several other theologians began using the term prior to it being adopted in the language of the 4th Lateran and 2nd Lyons Councils and also the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus. Trent officially promulgated the term as the correct expression of the dogma of the Real Presence.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.