I wanted to post a summary of what transpired on Beggars All last week regarding the Orthodox as accepting the term transubstantiation and the belief of the substance of the wine and bread being changed in substance, which is what the term means. A person misrepresented the Orthodox teaching on the Eucharist and then posted the exchange between myself and him without posting my last response. Those over at Beggars All deleted my last post and left his up declaring him a winner by default. When you can't post a response I guess that is how you win debates in the Reformed circles. Here was my last post on the debacle. Here once again you can see why I changed my blog around to avoid these clowns. The only reason I am posting it is because they deleted my last post.
So here is a summary of the vast evidence provided against Turretin Fan’s claim that the Orthodox Church does not believe that the wine and bread are changed in substance as the term transubstantiation defines by the Catholic Church.
We Several Orthodox Bishops who signed agreements with the Pope that they agree to all 7 sacraments including the doctrine on the Eucharist being transformed…
"The Spirit transforms the sacred gifts into the body and blood of Christ". (Taken from the JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE)
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese says, “But whatever were the various forms of the Divine Liturgy of the primitive Church, as well as of the Church of the final formation of the Divine Liturgy, the meaning given to it by both the celebrants and the communicants was one and the same; that is, the belief of the awesomechange of the sacred Species of the Bread and Wine into the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lord."
Another example from a Greek Orthodox Parish website..
"In this sacrament, the bread and wine offered to God become the Most Holy Precious and Life-Giving Body and Blood of Christ. This is known as transubstantiation. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox recognize each other as "Sister-Apostolic" churches."
Turretin doesn’t like the source because it wasn’t updated since JPII??? What that has to do with anything is anyone’s guess. Just another futile attempt to dodge the fact that he is wrong.
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia said on their website the following..
"While Orthodoxy has always insisted on the reality of the change- the bread and the wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ, it has never however attempted to explain the manner of the change. It is true that sometimes Orthodox theologians will make use of what came out of Latin scholasticism, the term “transubstantiation” (in Greek μετουσίωσης)."
Finally I provided an excellent source that was drawn up by the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and then signed by 86 Orthodox Bishops including the Russian Orthodox that confirms everything that I have said. But the best Turretin could come up with was that the document was accidentally written, and somehow this teaching slipped in unnoticed because of Latin influence. Yet when we go on the Ethereal Library online it holds this council as being one of the most important ever in modern history of Orthodoxy. It says in reference to the council which Turretin is now trying to claim a mistake.. Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus, A.D. 1672) as follows,…I quote..” It is dated Jerusalem, March 16, 1672, and signed by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Palestine (otherwise little known), and by sixty-eight Eastern bishops and ecclesiastics, including some from Russia. This Synod is the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent.”
These are all creditable sources either from the Archdiocese of the Greek Orthodox Church or one of their parishes, and the last example by Patriarchs and bishops drafting a specific document to attest to their beliefs, specifically in reference to the heresy of Protestantism. There is no possible way that they could have written such an in depth description of Transubstantiation by some freak accident which somehow slipped in. I frankly still can’t believe that someone would try to use such an argument, and think that everyone would buy into it. I guess TF thinks that if he presents a pile of crap to someone, as long as he presents it with a bold face, someone will buy it.
Finally I find it amusing that Turretin will outright reject the Patriarchs and bishops of the Orthodox Church who are charged with defining doctrine in favor of a couple of Orthodox theologians who have no charge and no authority to define anything. In fact all they can do is present their opinions and writings to the bishops to be examined and ultimately accepted or rejected by the bishops. This is never demonstrated and the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox hierarchy agrees with the Catholic Church on the doctrine of the Eucharist. Turretin Fan's ultimate argument rests on the fact that 86 bishops and a Patriarch allowed this doctrine to accidentally slip in? He is going to tell us that over a page of Eucharistic doctrine referring to Transubstantiation accidentally slipped in? If you buy into this then I have some Kansas ocean front property to sell you. Ask any Orthodox priest or bishop if they believe the substance is changed after the consecration they will answer yes. Below is part of the article signed by the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem along with 86 other Orthodox bishops in 1672 and the decree that supposedly, according to Turretin Fan "slipped in."
I quote from Turretin Fan.....This has to be the most amusing argument I have ever seen.
a) "These definitions slipped in accidentally in the first place;"
Below is what supposedly slipped in...
Decree 17
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}
Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread."
5 comments:
I'm truly shocked that a Protestant would be arguing about Transubstantiation from the EO side. Usually it is the EO themselves who object, but the fact is the Council of Jersusalem (Confession of Dositheos) of 1672 explicitly uses the term "Transubstantiation."
That Council, if you read it carefully, actually lifted much of it's thoughts directly from the documents of Trent.
The EO today often deny the term as a Latin invention, but they are just denying their own history.
It is true that there are some EO who will say they do not like to use the term Transubstantiation because they don't like the scholastic Latin explanation that goes beyond what the term actually means. Transubstantiation in reality just means, "The substance changes". Where you get into most of the confrontations is when that change actually occurs, which is a different matter altogether. When the Catholic Church defined the term, it also expounded beyond what the term itself means with further explanations on the Mass and the Eucharist.
The EO do not really attempt to define when the change of substance actually happens. They do not fully subscribe to the Catholic explanation that it happens exactly when the formula, "This is my Body, this is my blood" is said. This however does not negate the fact they they believe that it happens. They just do not want to examine and tear this incredible mystery down as far. They will however, and have always professed that the substance itself changes at some point. They define it as happening sometime during the Epiclesis, which calls down the Holy Spirit to transform, or transubstantiate the elements into the real Body and Blood of Christ.
From OrthodoxWiki , "During the Epiclesis, the people join their hearts to the words and actions of the priest as he petitions God to make these gifts holy. The bread and wine offered in remembrance of Christ, are the gifts to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ."
It is really odd that anyone would argue that the Orthodox would not believe in the substance itself being changed, because all of them profess that. It is just a question of how deep you want to go in trying to actually explain it. The term Transubstantiation nowadays is hardly argued over, because of what the word actually means, "substance is changed". You will find the disagreements go beyond the actual term to further defining points such as when it happens. Turretin Fan has gone far beyond what the term itself defines, trying to shoehorn every teaching the Catholic Church has proclaimed under the sun on the Eucharist, under the term Transubstantiation. The Catechism doesn't even define it beyond this simple explantion.
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. (CCC, 1376) "
So you will find few Orthodox today, who will even argue against the term. Most of the Orthodox who argued against the term argued other further explanations that came along when the term itself was defined at Trent. But we even have evidence of even the Orthodox not long after Trent assenting to the teaching.
In reviewing the "debate" between you and Mr. Fan, it seems that he has left out a number of historical facts from the discussion. Further, there must not be too much of a difference between what the Orthodox believe happens at epiclesis versus the Catholic teaching if the Catholic Church permits Orthodox to take communion in our churches and we are allowed to receive communion in theirs. I have asked permission twice to do so in my life and both my priest and the Orthodox priest raised no objection to same.
And as for the Orthodox themselves, one never sees them objecting to their members taking communion in a Catholic Church because we believe something different than they on the Real Presence. Their usual objections are that taking such would not be appropriate because it implies an unity that has not yet been achieved. However, it seems that each Orthodox group differs on this. I know the Copts allow their members to take communion in a Catholic Church if there is no Coptic Church available.
I think that turdfan misses the big picture, and that is that Jesus is physically present. The Orthodox do not believe that it is bread and Jesus. They do not believe that Jesus is only there spiritually. They believe that Jesus is physically there. Apparently turdfan must have been tripping too much on acid in his grandmother's basement. Either that, or he is just a liar plain and simple.
Apparently turdfan has his own take on this topic over at his own blog.
I'm starting to wonder if the asbestos in his grandmother's attic has affected more than his lungs.
Post a Comment