Issue with the denial of Transubstantiation

[Not David]

Since I got into the Orthodox Church, I have always heard that we don't believe in transubstantiation, we don't define it, that it's some Catholic non-sense, etc.

But it was a term to describe what happens in the Eucharist by the likes of Sts Mark of Ephesus and Gennadios Scholarios all the way to Sts Justin Popovic and John of Kronstadt. It’s used in documents like the Confession of Dositheus as well as modern day dogmatic theology manuals.

We have priests such as Fr Daniel Sysoev and Fr. Michael who say that even though the form of bread and wine are retained, in essence are the Body and Blood of Christ.

So it feels like it comes from an anti-western mentality that has affected some people such as trying to avoid using "original sin" just because it sounds Catholic even though it is quite used through Church History.

 

[Not David]

Fr. Daniel

 

[Not David]

Fr. Michael

 

[HTacianas]

Since I got into the Orthodox Church, I have always heard that we don't believe in transubstantiation, we don't define it, that it's some Catholic non-sense, etc.

But it was a term to describe what happens in the Eucharist by the likes of Sts Mark of Ephesus and Gennadios Scholarios all the way to Sts Justin Popovic and John of Kronstadt. It’s used in documents like the Confession of Dositheus as well as modern day dogmatic theology manuals.

We have priests such as Fr Daniel Sysoev and Fr. Michael who say that even though the form of bread and wine are retained, in essence are the Body and Blood of Christ.

So it feels like it comes from an anti-western mentality that has affected some people such as trying to avoid using "original sin" just because it sounds Catholic even though it is quite used through Church History.

"Transubstantiation" is a philosophical term used to describe the manner in which the bread and wine become the body and blood. To "deny" transubstantiation is not to deny that the bread and wine are the body and blood, but only a denial of the philosophical construct itself. But transubstantiation can be used as a general term meaning the bread and wine become the body and blood, without accepting the philosophical explanation of how it does.

The Greek term has always been metamorphosis, meaning "change", but having no defined explanation of the manner in which the change occurs. Even the Coptic Orthodox Church, having no real relationship with Rome, uses the term transubstantiation, yet does not hold to the philosophical definition of transubstantiation.

So we have a condition where the specific definition of transubstantiation is rejected, while the general use of the term is accepted.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's not that we deny the term (because we don't). we deny the overtly defined Roman understanding as the main explanation of the mystery.

 

[Phronema]

So it feels like it comes from an anti-western mentality that has affected some people such as trying to avoid using "original sin" just because it sounds Catholic even though it is quite used through Church History.

Even though this is a bit off topic I'll also just add that the Orthodox Church doesn't use the term "original sin" because the Orthodox Church doesn't affirm the doctrine of original sin as is taught in the west as it's theologically incorrect. It has nothing to do with being anti-western. It's wrong because the Orthodox Church affirms that we bear the consequences (such as death) of the first sin, but not the guilt associated with it, and so the preferred term associated with that is ancestral sin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Even though this is a bit off topic I'll also just add that the Orthodox Church doesn't use the term "original sin" because the Orthodox Church doesn't affirm the doctrine of original sin as is taught in the west as it's theologically incorrect. It has nothing to do with being anti-western. It's wrong because the Orthodox Church affirms that we bear the consequences (such as death) of the first sin, but not the guilt associated with it, and so the preferred term associated with that is ancestral sin.

correct, there are things that can be understood properly, but that we don't usually use because of erroneous baggage that comes with it.

 

[Not David]

Even though this is a bit off topic I'll also just add that the Orthodox Church doesn't use the term "original sin" because the Orthodox Church doesn't affirm the doctrine of original sin as is taught in the west as it's theologically incorrect. It has nothing to do with being anti-western. It's wrong because the Orthodox Church affirms that we bear the consequences (such as death) of the first sin, but not the guilt associated with it, and so the preferred term associated with that is ancestral sin.

Well, the idea of original sin as part of guilt is something I might do a different topic about because in some saints writings it sounds like that is the case. Nevertheless, I feel that that causes even more confusion when people read about Councils or Church Fathers and see stuff that sound "Roman Catholic"

 

[Not David]

correct, there are things that can be understood properly, but that we don't usually use because of erroneous baggage that comes with it.

Have any saints or Councils condemn or suggest not to use those terms? Because I see the opposite, with them using the terms even after the time of the Schism.

 

[Not David]

My issue is that I feel it is throwing the baby with the bathtub.

The Confession of Dositheus for example agrees with the idea of Communion being a Mystery and rejects some use of Philosophy by saying "this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects" and "for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety".

However, it still talks about transubstantiation and talks about how the substance is the Body and Blood while the accidents of bread and wine remains. Also, it even rejects the impanation belief.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Have any saints or Councils condemn or suggest not to use those terms? Because I see the opposite, with them using the terms even after the time of the Schism.

no, they just never took because of the baggage

 

[ArmyMatt]

My issue is that I feel it is throwing the baby with the bathtub.

The Confession of Dositheus for example agrees with the idea of Communion being a Mystery and rejects some use of Philosophy by saying "this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects" and "for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety".

However, it still talks about transubstantiation and talks about how the substance is the Body and Blood while the accidents of bread and wine remains. Also, it even rejects the impanation belief.

again, none of that last paragraph is erroneous, it just has to be taken in with all of what is said about the mystery.

 

[Not David]

again, none of that last paragraph is erroneous, it just has to be taken in with all of what is said about the mystery.

Ok, if that means I don't have to take sides then I guess there is no denial of transubstantiation.
Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok, if that means I don't have to take sides then I guess there is no denial of transubstantiation.
Thanks for the clarification.

as with a lot of things, if you have the right understanding, then no you don't.