Eastern Church: Eucharist & transubstantiation

[Alvin Kimel]

Greetings. I am an Episcopal priest who has studied Orthodoxy for a number of years, particularly on the subject that is dear to my heart, the Holy Eucharist. Several points remain unclear to me, however, so I thought I would post my queries to this group and invite your
responses.

First, my judgment is that Orthodoxy asserts the identity of the consecrated elements with the body and blood of our Lord. The bread and wine become and are the body and blood. We might call this the doctrine of the real identity (borrowing the phrase from Anglican theologian Francis J. Hall). There is an identity between the sacramental body and blood and the body and blood of the crucified and ascended Christ (see St. Nicholas Cabasilas, *Commentary on the Divine Liturgy*, p. 70).

Second, Orthodox theologians and believers are reluctant to speak any further about the transformation of the elements, preferring to
immediately invoke its mystery. This humility before the mystery is applaudable, in one sense, yet it is also quite frustrating to an outsider. Indeed, I especially find it frustrating when Orthodox believers assert that this humility is superior to the Western "compulsion" to "analyze" and "dissect" the Eucharistic mystery. Historically, Eastern theologians have often been at the forefront in theological speculation, especially when confronted by heretical teachings. I am thinking here specifically of the theological reflections of Athanasius and the Cappadocians on the doctrine of God, as well as the reflections of Gregory Palamas on the divine being and energies of God. With regard to the Eucharist, on the other hand, Orthodoxy has never really had to confront the heretical teaching of a Bergengar or a Zwingli; thus it's been able simply enjoy and honor the mystery, without having to address the difficult questions posed by a purely symbolic comprehension of the sacrament.

It is interesting to note, however, that when Orthodoxy did have to confront the Protestant heresies in the person of one of its own, Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, it found itself invoking the language and distinctions of Western Catholicism (with qualifications). See, for example, the Confession of Peter Mogila (1640) and the Confession of Dositheus (1672):

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Contemporary Orthodox theologians, such as Schmemann and Meyendorff, now look back on these confessions with embarrassment and attribute
them to Orthodoxy's "captivity to the West," which strikes me as anachronistic and unfair to the theologians and bishops involved at the time. Moreover, the Greek Church still refers to these documents as authoritative sources for Orthodox belief:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7064.asp

Third, what precisely is the Orthodox objection to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? Okay, I understand and agree that if transubstantiation is advanced as an explanation of the transformation of the oblations of bread and wine--and I think St. Thomas does cross the line here--that it probably goes too far. However, the Council of Trent does not advance transubstantiation as an "explanation" of the
eucharistic transformation. It only advances a clear assertion that the bread and wine truly are ontologically changed into the body and blood of our Lord. Why would the Orthodox object to this?

As I read the dogma of transubstantiation, it seeks to assert the following points:

(1) The elements are indeed changed. They have truly become the body and blood of Christ. If we ask the question "After the consecration, what is now on the altar?" the proper answer is "the body and blood of the incarnate Word of God." In other words, the substance of the elements have changed. Remember: substance is what a thing _is_.

(2) This change is not an empirical, material, or chemical change. It occurs at the deep level of being. Thus the distinction between appearances and substance and thus the typical Catholic presentation that the body and blood of Christ are present "under" the appearances of the consecrated bread and wine. I confess that I am not totally comfortable with the language that speaks of the substance of Christ's body and blood "under" the appearances of bread and wine--I prefer the language of identity--but I do note that Cabasilas also refers to the body of Christ as "the substance which lies beneath the appearance of bread" (*Commentary*, p. 81).

(3) The consecrated elements may be properly adored and worshipped because they are the personal embodiment of the risen Son of God. No
idolatry is involved, because the bread and wine no longer enjoy the metaphysical status of creaturely substances. They (i.e., the appearances of bread and wine) have instead become the efficacious signs of our Lord's body and blood, the substance of which is now present with and under the respective signs. This third point is important and I think often overlooked by Orthodox theologians. If the substance of the bread and wine still remains, does not eucharistic adoration necessarily involve the worship of creatures? For this reason, Catholics insist, the mystery of the eucharistic conversion simply cannot be understood as analogous to the mystery of the Incarnation. The eternal Word does not "assume" the bread and wind into hypostatic union with himself, which would be impanation; he changes their substance and reality, through the power of the Spirit. (I do note, however, that in his book *Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought*, Constantine Tsirpanlis interprets John of Damascus as teaching a form of impanation. I find this an unlikely interpretation, but I have yet to find anyone who has addressed and refuted Tsirpanlis on this point.)

Now I do not know if this is the best theological interpretation of the eucharistic transformation--I myself prefer the Anglo-Catholic interpretation of Robert Wilberforce--but I certainly understand why the doctrine of transubstantiation was developed in response to the heresies of Berengar and the Protestant reformers, and it may well
have been the best possible response at that historical point of time. And the doctrine certainly preserves the crucial catholic assertion
that the eucharistic elements do truly become the glorified humanity of the risen Jesus.

So why are so many Orthodox believers so critical of the doctrine? Is the criticism truly grounded in theological conviction, or is it just another example of the East defining itself over against the evil West?

Consider the discussions of Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff.

In his wonderful book *The Eucharist*, Schmemann blames the West for the disjunction between symbol and reality. Once the West introduced
this separation, it found itself having to employ inappropriate and misleading ontological language for its articulation of the Eucharistic mystery. But how convincing is Schmemann here? I observe that already in the fourth and fifth centuries, Eastern writers are saying that Christ did not say "This is a figure of my body" but "This
is my body." The iconoclastic controversy is particularly enlightening here. The iconoclasts asserted that the Eucharist was the only proper image of Christ. The inconophiles replied that the Eucharist is not an image of the body and blood of Christ; it _is_ the body and blood of Christ. And we find a similar position argued in John of Damascus. Thus we see Byzantine theology decisively moving away from the category of symbol to interpret the Holy Eucharist, not
because of Western influence but because of a growing recognition of the inadequacy of symbol to interpret the Holy Mysteries. Yet Schmemann never mentions any of this, preferring instead to blame the West and scholasticism.

In his *Byzantine Theology* Meyendorff asserts: "As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine 'Eucharistic realism,' clearly departing from Dionysian terminology was redirected along Christological and soteriological lines; in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the 'essence of God,' but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink. In his treatise *Against Eusebius and Epiphanius*, Patriarch Nicephorus is particularly emphatic in condemning the Origenist idea that in the Eucharist man contemplates or participates in the 'essence' of God. For him, as also for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine 'energies.' Characteristically never finds the category of 'essence' (_ousia_) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like 'transubstantiation' (_metousiosis_) improper to designate the
Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of _metabole_, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as 'trans-elementation' (_metastooicheiosis) or 're-ordination' (_metarrhythmisis_). Transubstantiation (_metousiosis_) appears only
in the writings of the _Latinophrones_ of the thirteen century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin.... The Eucharist is
neither a symbol to be 'contemplated' from outside nor an 'essence' distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, 'made known
through the breaking of bread' (Lk 24:35)" (pp. 203-204).

Meyendorff certainly seems to be suggesting that Byzantine theologians steered away from _ousia_ language because of theological reasons. But how persuasive is this? He does not present a single Byzantine theologian who criticized transubstantiation. He implies that using
_ousia_ language to speak of the consecrated elements is improper because it suggests that by partaking of them we then participate in the divine _ousia_; but this is an incorrect reading of St. Thomas and Western theology. According to St. Thomas, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, respectively. It is the glorified humanity of Jesus that is present under the appearances. The divinity of Christ is only present by concomitance, because the human nature of Christ cannot be divided from the divine nature of Christ.

The iconoclastic controversy is illuminating here. As Meyendorff notes in his chapter on icons, the iconoclasts maintained that the only proper image is one that is _homoousios_ with its prototype. Consequently, the only proper image of Christ is the Eucharist, for only the Eucharist is identical in essence to Christ. In his book
*The Spirit of Eastern Christendom* Jaroslav Pelkian observes that on the nature of the Eucharist, the iconoclasts and iconophiles were in
fundamental agreement. Thus, we do not find the Orthodox criticizing the iconoclasts for asserting that the Eucharistic elements are _homoousios_ with the risen Lord. Instead, they rejected the claim that an image is necessarily consubstantial with its prototype. The Eucharist is not an image of Christ. It simply _is_ Christ. In light of the above, is it really likely that Byzantine theologians avoided _ousia_ language to speak of the Eucharist because they judged such language to be inappropriate to the
Eucharist? Indeed, is not such language implied in the Byzantine assertion that the Eucharist _is_ Christ?

I think I'll close here. I invite your thoughtful responses.

Pax,
Fr. Alvin Kimel+

[Owen Jones]

Others can respond more academically, Fr. Alvin, but let me point out a couple of things. First, I do not think there is any such thing in Orthodoxy as "eucharistic theology" as a distinct area of theological inquiry, since every question brings up other aspects of Orthodox life, worship, asceticism, dogma. For example, in Orthodoxy, there is no such thing as a priest's mass, as there is in the West. That's something to contemplate. I don't think it's unrelated to your questions and comments.

Also, as St. Paul points out, the eucharist is life giving to one, poison to another. So every conclusion reached regarding the eucharist is attached to larger questions. Simply saying "it's a mystery" perhaps misses this larger point.

Now, my own philosophical perspective on the eucharist is the same as that on the Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension. These are not facts of history, but we know them to be what they are by faith, and only those with a transformed vision that is the result of faith, and the other aspects of Orthodox asceticism, are able to "see" these things as they really are. If you had had a camera and taken a picture of Christ's Transfiguration or His Ascension, these would not have registered on film, any more than a chemist would recognize Christ by testing the eucharistic elements. But I am not well-read on patristic commentaries on the Eucharist so someone else will have to chime in on that one.

Mostly, what I object to is the Western tendency to systematize, which loses the pastoral purpose of our theology. And surely we must admit that the receiving of the eucharist has become way too mechanical, east and west. That can't be right.

I'm a former Episcopal priest, btw.

Owen Jones

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear in the Lord, Fr Alvin,

First of all, welcome to the discussion community.

Regarding your questions on the Orthodox view towards the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation: you raise some good points. The fact that there is much (and there is, indeed much) truth encapsulated in this doctrine is something that has, in fact, been traditionally appreciated by most Orthodox theologians. Such theologians have, for example, usually been willing to note the much closer proximity between the understanding that lies behind this view and that of the Orthodox Church, as compared, for example, with the notion of consubstantiation as espoused in other Christian bodies.

But it is not so much the value of the positive theological statements of the dogma of transubstantiation that has 'gone against the grain' of Orthodox thought (though, admittedly, there are problems here, too). Rather, it is the underlying issue of the distintegration of holy mystery that comes from the problems inherent in systematisation - any systematisation. You did raise this point in your post; but perhaps you were too quick there to dismiss it? The Orthodox tendency not to systematise is in fact a vastly important aspect of its approach to the living mystery of theology. It is not just the character of the consecration of the holy Eucharist that is influenced here: we also have no catechism, no difinitive volume on dogmatics. To mysterion pisteos, the mystery of the Faith, is paramount, for it is only in the life of the mystery that God is encountered and not just rationally apprehended.

With particular attention to the Eucharist: The dogma of transubstantiation raises many points that are, in their own right, not inherently objectionable. That God is 'under' the elements is a statement that echoes the sentiments of many an Orthodox Father. Still, if we formulate a schema, a system of dogma, that defines God's presence in the Eucharist as 'under the elements', we limit the reality of the mystery. It is a true claim, but it is far, far from a whole claim. God is under the elements; but we firmly believe also that He is the elements.

As a second example, the notion of the ontological essences of the offered gifts (bread and wine) changing to the divine nature of the body and blood of God, whilst the sensible accidentals of those gifts (e.g. taste, form, scent) remain the same, also reflects statements offered by certain among the Orthodox Fathers (though not, by far, all). However, even if we hypothetically accept such a 'model', it can be at best only allegorical, only relational. Stepping back for a moment, we must ask: just what is the ousia of bread? Can we authentically define with such linguistic or philosophical precision the metaphysical properties of elements that we, in some sense, must ourselves invent in order to make possible our explanation?

It is in the spirit of such questions that Orthodoxy tends away from the systematisation of such a mystery. We will (often) use language and concepts which, for example, you might find embraced in such a dogma as transubstantiation, as allegorical, relational descriptions valid within a specific context of discussion. But to take such language, such concepts, and formulate from them a schematic, metaphysical description of the 'mechanics' of the consecration, is in a very real sense to limit the effective value of the mystery of the sacrament itself. The Eucharist, like all elements of the Orthodox faith, can ultimately be apprehended only apophatically; and at their hearts, apophasis and dogmatic rationalism are not brothers.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear Matthew,

You point out that Orthodoxy has no catechism. Thank God! I find it humorous that Clark Carlton, who is a passionate convert to Orthodoxy, has produced a catechism, that, while sound as it is, tends to dogmatize in the same way as the Baptists he left.

At the same time, wouldn't there be utility in an ascetical catechism that could be used by pastors, both for converts preparing for their first communion, as well as mature Orthodox to be continually refreshed spiritually? Without having to carry around all five volumes of the Philokalia under their arms?

Topics might include some of the following:
1. what is the true nature of obedience?
2. what is the Spirit of the Apostles and how do we acquire it?
3. how do we pray?
4. what is Christian meditation?
5. what are the benefits of self-denial?
6. how do we achieve balance in our spiritual life?
7. what does it mean to live in the world and not of the world? In a practical way?
8. why must we change?
9. how do we make progress in our spiritual life?
10. what does it mean to have our sense perception changed?
11. how do we read and understand Holy Scripture?

This discussion group has raised many of these practical spiritual questions and more, and have discussed a lot of good responses to them. The point would be for people in the average parish to be better equipped to enjoy the full spiritual fruits of an Orthodox life, without fretting over whether we are trying hard enough or doing enough.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Alvin Kimel Posted on Saturday, 08 March
"This humility before the mystery is applaudable, in one sense, yet it is also quite frustrating to an outsider."

So it must have been for those who first attempted to analyze the Eucharist. They simple claimed that Christians had hidden parts of the body of Christ and were secretly eating it. Attributing cannibalism to the earliest Christians.

I believe the Eucharist is not something we analyze as to the how, but that which we partake while giving thanks for who.

Also, I think we avoid attributing any idea of speculation to the Fathers of our Faith. Your term 'theological speculation' projects back upon them the general milieu of modern theological studies.

Also, the general approach of Western theological speculation has been to identify the "change" and that is not good or true theology from an Orthodox perspective. Indeed, to it the term "speculation" is quite apropros. I think Owen's first post states the same or similiar argument.

The Orthodox Confession often addresses the topic of Change in relation to the Diety and humanity of Christ. It is always denied, no change takes place. Indeed, it seems to me, that those answers which attempt to resolve questions of change lead outside of the Orthodox Faith into heresy, that is to say, private opinions.

The Arian heresy also is an attempt to resolve a question of Change; How can God become Man? The heresies which followed also were questions of change attempting to answer how Christ could be one person with two natures without change. Perhaps it will appear anachronistic to argue the following, but still it seem apropos. The Disciples who left off following Jesus (John 6) are those who pondered the question of change, "How can he give us his Flesh to eat?"

St. Hilary said that the reality of this experience is realized through both the 'declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith.' (On the Trinity) Does our confession of Faith materialize the presence of the Lord? No, neither does the mere reciting of the words of the Lord. Yet, without both of these, we do not receive that which is the body and blood of Christ.

Our worship is the Divine Liturgy of the Eucharistic offering of Christ Himself to his Father and to us. It is Christ who makes himself present not the Priest. This latter point is also one of the subtle difference between Orthodox Eucharistic Theology and Roman Catholic doctrine. The Roman Catholic doctine extends to the Priest power to "make" Christ present. The Roman Catholic Priest is the vehicle of Change in its Eucharistic doctrine.

In Orthodoxy the body of the Church already is the body of Christ and the body of Christ is the body of the Christ's Church. There is no change, there is however a tranformation, a divine revelation of the mystery of Christ who is one person with two natures. It is Christ who has given to the Church His Body and Blood, it is the Church who possesses it and celebrates that giving and in that celebration receives from Christ that which Christ has given.

Even before the bread has been received by the priest, there are already prayers being said by those who prepared it for the Holy Sacrifice. Even before the Eucharistic offering, there are prayers which are said which seperate the loaf (loaves)for the sacrifice.

Even the bread, from which a sacrifice is taken, and which remains is still Holy and received after fasting and prayers. We do not identify this as the body of Christ but as having a share in that body which is Christ.

For Orthodox Christians, there is no moment of change but rather a moment of reception. From that prayer on we receive the bread which is Christ's body and the wine which is Christ's blood.

From then on, the question of "How" is properly asked, but it is not "How can this be?" but "How can I who am unworthy, receive that which is wholly Holy and remain unharmed in my body?" We do speak of change from that moment of reception, asking, "How can I receive and not be changed?

Thus, for the Orthodox Christian, the proper point theological to ask about change is after our reception and then addressing our change. There is also the confession that those who receive unworthily can and may suffer bodily harm. Owen made brief reference to this in his first post.

No doubt, I have failed miserably to explain the mystery and its place in the Church. I hope, however, I have written nothing offensive, for I did not mean to offend.

john

[Alvin Kimel]

Thank you, Matthew, for your good posting. If I may, a few follow-up comments:


> Dear in the Lord, Fr Alvin,
>
> First of all, welcome to the discussion community.
>
> Regarding your questions on the Orthodox view towards the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation: you raise some good points. The fact that there is much (and there is, indeed much) truth encapsulated in this doctrine is something that has, in fact, been traditionally appreciated by most Orthodox theologians. Such theologians have, for example, usually been willing to note the much closer proximity between the understanding that lies behind this view and that of the Orthodox Church, as compared, for example, with the notion of con substantiation as espoused in other Christian bodies.
>
> But it is not so much the value of the positive theological statements of the dogma of transubstantiation that has 'gone against the grain' of Orthodox thought (though, admittedly, there are problems here, too). Rather, it is the underlying issue of the distintegration of holy mystery that comes from the problems inherent in systematisation - any systematisation. You did raise this point in your post; but perhaps you were too quick there to dismiss it? The Orthodox tendency not to systematise is in fact a vastly important aspect of its approach to the living mystery of theology. It is not just the character of the consecration of the holy Eucharist that is influenced here: we also have no catechism, no difinitive volume on dogmatics. To mysterion pisteos , the mystery of the Faith, is paramount, for it is only in the life of the mystery that God is encountered and not just rationally apprehended.
>

As an Anglican I am not dogmatically committed to the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation, though I do recognize its evangelical intent to protect the fundamental catholic conviction of the identity of the consecrated elements with the body and blood of the ascended Christ. That is to say, its intent is precisely to protect the Eucharistic mystery against the rationalism of Berengar and Zwingli, in particular, and against the perhaps problematic expressions of Luther.

Once the Eucharist has come under heretical attack, intelligible reflection seems both inevitable and desirable. Eastern and Western theologians certainly engaged in the most profound, intense, and systematic reflections on the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation in response to the heretical teachings of Arius, Apollinaris, and Nestorius. Their reflections not only established the theological limits of orthodox discourse but they also led the Church into a deeper understanding of the mysteries of the triune God and his way of salvation. As my primary evidence, I cite the philosophically sophisticated writings of St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Cyril of Alexandria. They not only helped the Church to understand why the teachings of Arius & Company were heretical, but through their reflections the Church was given both new language with which to speak of the mysteries of God and a deeper understanding of these mysteries. Perhaps it is contrary to Orthodox belief to allow for development of doctrine--at least so some Orthodox writers I have seen suggest--but it's clear to me that such doctrinal development has in fact historically occurred in the life of the Church. If the theologians of the Church have been rightly willing--indeed, compelled by the Spirit--to reflect and speak on the mystery of God the Holy Trinity and his incarnational invasion of the creation he has made, then why is it wrong for our theologians to reflect on the mystery of the risen Son of God's presence in the Mysteries of his Body and Blood? There is of course a time and place for such reflection. When Arius appears on the scene, there must be Athanasius. And when Berengar appears, thank God that he raises up St. Thomas.

With regards to the Latin dogma of transubstantiation, one must note, in respect to the Roman Church, that it did not dogmatize the complex private reflections of St. Thomas. The Tridentine dogmas are much more modest and very explicitly directed against the heresies of Zwingli, Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. Trent does not explain the Eucharistic mystery; it simply states it. The Orthodox Church is blessed indeed that she has not had to suffer the destructive sacramental teachings of the Protestant reformers (with the exception of Cyril Lucar). But if she had had to confront such heretical teachings, how would she have responded? Indeed, given the present reality of such heretical teaching throughout the world, how does the Orthodox Church respond? If she hopes to preach the Gospel to Protestant Christendom, must she not in fact provide an adequate critique of Protestant eucharistic teachings, as well as a cogent statement of the true eucharistic mystery. And if transubstantiation is not adequate, then surely there must be a superior doctrinal alternative. Just as it was insufficient for the Church to simply reject Arianism and Nestorianism, it was also necessary for her to elaborate, with depth and sophistication, the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. So, I suggest, with the Eucharist. At the very least, Orthodoxy should be sympathetic to the efforts of Rome in this regard and understanding why it was necessary for Trent to dogmatize the substantial conversion of the elements. And if transubstantiation is deficient, then let her provide a superior statement, instead of retreating into a premature invocation of mystery.

The Orthodox theologians of the 17th century in fact found it useful and necessary, with qualifications, to employ the Tridentine distinctions in the Catechism of Mohila, the Confession of Dositheus, and the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem. Yes, they are obviously influenced by Latin eucharistic reflection, but they obviously found this reflection to be quite helpful at that particular point of time; and subsequent Orthodox Churches also found them helpful up through much of the 20th century. The adoption of the vocabulary of transubstantiation hardly represents capitulation to Rome, as the same theologians and councils that commend transubstantiation remain implacably hostile to Rome.

I received an email post this week from an Orthodox seminary professor who told me categorically that Orthodoxy rejects transubstantiation. The writings of Alexander Schmemann were cited in defense of this claim. Others have told me the same thing. Yet I find this odd. For 300 years Orthodoxy found the language and distinctions of transubstantiation to be helpful in setting forth her view of the Eucharistic presence; but suddenly the Orthodox theologians in America are convinced that Orthodox bishops and theologians of these three centuries were wrong. They were influenced and corrupted by the scholasticism of the West. Yet in 1961 one of the foremost Greek theologians, Panagiotes Trembelas, wrote in his "Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church": "We are in accord in this with the Roman Catholics in believing that in this
marvellous transformation although the exterior phenomena and the accidents of bread and wine remain, all their substance however is changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord." So who am I to believe?

> With particular attention to the Eucharist: The dogma of transubstantiation raises many points that are, in their own right, not inherently objectionable. That God is 'under' the elements is a statement that echoes the sentiments of many an Orthodox Father. Still, if we formulate a schema, a system of dogma, that defines God's presence in the Eucharist as 'under the elements', we limit the reality of the mystery. It is a true claim, but it is far, far from a whole claim. God is under the elements; but we firmly believe also that He is the elements.
>

Here may I offer my strong assent! I'm not clear how a Catholic would respond to your statements, but in my opinion the assertion of the identity of the Eucharistic elements with the body and blood of Jesus is the primary catholic claim. And here is the heart of my concern. Does the dogma of transubstantiation, even in its modest Tridentine form, authorize the kind of realistic preaching about the Eucharist that we find in St. John Chrysostom?

"Wherefore this also Christ hath done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and to show His love for us; He hath given to those who desire Him not only to see Him, but even to touch, and eat Him, and fix their teeth in His flesh, and to embrace Him, and satisfy all their love."

"How many now say, 'I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.' Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!"

It's not clear to me whether a post-Tridentine Catholic would feel comfortable preaching like this. Would a contemporary Orthodox priest feel comfortable saying these words? Yet I strongly believe that we must be able to preach like this, and if our eucharistic theories do not authorize this kind of language, then they are defective. Yet I am not competent and bright enough to go beyond this intuition of mine. Here, I think, Orthodox theologians have the potential to make a real contribution. In the early 20th century, two Greek theologians, Dyobouniotes and Androutsos, debated precisely this question. Dyobouniotes criticized Androutsos for teaching that Christ was present actually and really under the forms of bread and wine: Christ did not say, "This is my body under the form of bread. This is my blood under the form of wine." Unfortunately, I do not know the substance of this debate, and since I do not read Greek I am unable to research the matter further; but I gather that the Greek Church decided in favor of Androutsos. Yet perhaps Dyobouniotes discerned something essential here--the implicit dualism of transubstantiation.

After the consecration, there is, according to transubstantiation, the visible, tangible species of bread and wine; and under them there is the substance of our Lord's body and blood. When I bite into the consecrated bread, however, do I actually bite into the body of the risen Lord, or am I merely biting into the species, while simultaneously partaking spiritually of our Lord's body?

Interestingly, Martin Luther also intuitively felt and rejected this dualism of transubstantiation. He was a strong supporter of the infamous first oath that Bergengar was required to recite in 1059, which stated that the faithful crush with their teeth the true body of Christ. Luther really was not a supporter of consubstantiation, as he believed that after the consecration the bread and wine were indeed the body and blood of Christ.

> As a second example, the notion of the ontological essences of the offered gifts (bread and wine) changing to the divine nature of the body and blood of God, whilst the sensible accidentals of those gifts (e.g. taste, form, scent) remain the same, also reflects statements offered by certain among the Orthodox Fathers (though not, by far, all). However, even if we hypothetically accept such a 'model', it can be at best only allegorical, only relational. Stepping back for a moment, we must ask: just what is the ousia of bread ? Can we authentically define with such linguistic or philosophical precision the metaphysical properties of elements that we, in some sense, must ourselves invent in order to make possible our explanation?
>

I do not disagree.

> It is in the spirit of such questions that Orthodoxy tends away from the systematisation of such a mystery. We will (often) use language and concepts which, for example, you might find embraced in such a dogma as transubstantiation, as allegorical, relational descriptions valid within a specific context of discussion . But to take such language, such concepts, and formulate from them a schematic, metaphysical description of the 'mechanics' of the consecration, is in a very real sense to limit the effective value of the mystery of the sacrament itself. The Eucharist, like all elements of the Orthodox faith, can ultimately be apprehended only apophatically; and at their hearts, apophasis and dogmatic rationalism are not brothers.
>
> INXC, Matthew

Thank you again.

Yours in Christ,
Alvin+

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I speak as a Lutheran Layman with a (Lutheran) seminary education.

As I understand it, any opposition to the term or concept of transubstantiation in Orthodoxy is to its basis in Aristotelian categories. Aquinas is said to have "baptized" Aristotle for the church and was taken in the West (finally) as a turn for the better from an earlier perceived neo-platonism.

This was certainly Luther's objection, though he would rather communicate one who believed in transubstantiation than Zwingly, whom he said was "of a different spirit" (than he.)

As far as systematization goes, I believe Melanchthon learned the art from St. John of Damascus (see the latter's "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith")

I think the fact of the matter is that Catholocism Anglicanism and Lutheranism, in the West, and Orthodoxy in the East all believe, teach and confess that partating of the eucharistic elements by the faithful is eating and drinking the body and blood of the resurrected Lord to the benifit of forgiveness of sin and unity with God and the Church, regardless of how they word such a confession.

And Owen, Orthodoxy has several catechisms, two ( a larger and a smaller), notably by Philaret. Another, more recent addition is "A New Style Orthodox Catechism" by George Mastrantonis, though, of course, they have not been "canonized" as in Lutheranism.

Richard

[Alvin Kimel]

The Catechism of Peter Mohila: http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/OCF.html

Philaret's catechism, adapted for the United States: http://easternorthodox1.tripod.com/catechism_of_the.htm

Bishop Alfeyev's online catechism: http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/catechism/000001.php

Also see: http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0122.HTM (Catechism for the Greek Church in Canada)

http://www.bible.ca/cr-Orthodox.htm (a private catechism of Fr. Constans Demetry)

[Owen Jones]

"So who am I to believe?"

This is a typical question of people looking at Orthodoxy from the outside. It's usually not very fruitful. In Orthodoxy, there is no Curia or house of Cardinals to definitively answer these questions, which is all for the best. One really has to be Orthodox in any case, and not on the outside looking in, to understand the true meaning of the eucharist.

[Alvin Kimel]

LOL. A lot of my fellow Anglicans say the same thing about Anglicanism. And I certainly acknowledge that true understanding of any community requires an immersion into the discourse and practices of that community. But I suspect that the law of contradiction still obtains even in the Kingdom of God. Is it not a reasonable inference that if two respected theologians make contradictory claims about what Orthodoxy confesses that one or both of them is wrong? If one says that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in fundamental agreement on the transformation of the oblations of bread and wine and another says that they are not, then the both can't be right, can they?

AFK+

[Owen Jones]

I won't concede at all that they both can't be right, because it's essentially a matter of perspective, not proscriptive definition. There can be no objectification of the eucharist. The problem is the underlying fallacy of objectification. The question of substance, or substantial reality, when speaking of Incarnation of God in Christ or in the eucharistic elements, is irrelevant without faith. There is no SUBSTANCE without faith. Faith is the substance. So then the question is begged, what faith, whose faith? It has to be a faith that transforms and reveals. It's not that Anglicans or Roman Catholics have no revelation or no faith. Nor does it mean that every Orthodox faithful has a perfected faith. But the substance of the eucharistic elements is a contingent reality, not something that can be objectified. That is just one reason why there cannot be a priest's mass in Holy Orthodoxy.
The body of the faithful has to be present. This is also why Orthodox do not get into the question of validity. We simply do not get into it because we realize that it is an irrelevancy.

Also, I find it interesting that your question seems to have been posed initially as a setup. In other words, you already knew the answer in your own mind that you would accept. So you wanted, perhaps?, to see how Orthodox people would mishandle the question, in order to justify the Anglican "position."

[M.C. Steenberg]

Orthodoxy has several catechisms, two (a larger and a smaller), notably by Philaret. Another, more recent addition is "A New Style Orthodox Catechism" by George Mastrantonis, though, of course, they have not been "canonized" as in Lutheranism.

The last line in this quoted text is that which is essential.

Of course many 'catechisms' exist within the fold of Orthodox patristic and ecclesiastical writing. Teachers in every era have needs related to the education of the faithful in their own context and situation. Writing of the catechetical style texts goes back at least to St Irenaeus and St Theophilus, if not well before.

But the Church has never encapsulated its doctrine in a catechism. There is no Catechism of the Orthodox Church in the way that there is a distinct volume as such in Roman Catholicism. Catechesis is always a situational, pastoral issue.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Alvin,

Your comment on the intellectual sophistication and precision of formulae in the Cappadocian and other Fathers is well noted. But no one suggests that such intellection and description is contrary to Orthodox thought. Times and currents require specification of Christian truth in the face of heresy.

As such, Orthodoxy has always been happy with the notion of deeply investigating its own beliefs, refining them with language and conceptuality in such a way that they can be clarified to the point of need.

But this is vastly different from an academic systematisation of Christian doctrine. This latter is the type of scholastic reasoning which the Church sees as encapsulated in the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. As I mentioned before, Orthodoxy is not against many of the teachings of that dogma in their own right; it is the systematisation of true teachings into an artificial framework and definition that is the problem.

There is a major and essential difference between using reason, of whatever flavour, to clarify at the point of situational need (always embraced by Orthodoxy), and using reason for the sake of rational systemics (always rejected by Orthodoxy). We cannot forget the pastoral and personal situations which gave rise to the 'systems' of St John of Damascus and others.

INXC, Matthew

[Alvin Kimel]

> I won't concede at all that they both can't be right, = because it's essentially a matter of perspective, not proscriptive = definition. There can be no objectification of the eucharist. The = problem is the underlying fallacy of objectification. The question of = substance, or substantial reality, when speaking of Incarnation of God = in Christ or in the eucharistic elements, is irrelevant without faith. = There is no SUBSTANCE without faith. Faith is the substance. So then the = question is begged, what faith, whose faith? It has to be a faith that = transforms and reveals. It's not that Anglicans or Roman Catholics have = no revelation or no faith. Nor does it mean that every Orthodox faithful = has a perfected faith. But the substance of the eucharistic elements is = a contingent reality, not something that can be objectified. That is = just one reason why there cannot be a priest's mass in Holy Orthodoxy.=20 > The body of the faithful has to be present. This is also = why Orthodox do not get into the question of validity. We simply do not = get into it because we realize that it is an irrelevancy.=20 >=20

I really wonder, Owen, if your viewpoint here is representative of = Orthodoxy, as this is the first time any Orthodox believer I have spoken = to or read has advanced this sort of position. I did not respond to = your first post, as I was hoping to see if any of the other list members = would address your assertions about faith. I certainly would never = assert the following: "The question of substance, or substantial = reality, when speaking of Incarnation of God in Christ or in the = eucharistic elements, is irrelevant without faith. There is no SUBSTANCE = without faith. Faith is the substance"; but I also recognize that there = is a high likelihood that I am misunderstanding you, given the = differences between our respective traditions. =20

Nor do I really understand your criticism about "objectification." If = you means something like trying to detach oneself from the mystery of = our participation through faith in the life of the triune God, and to = assume an "objective," neutral position, then I of course agree with you = wholeheartedly. But if you mean that we cannot speak of God's = self-objectification in human history, both in the Incarnation and in = his Eucharistic Presence, then I disagree with you wholeheartedly. = Whether I recognize him or not, Jesus is the eternal Son of God. = Whether I recognize him or not, Jesus is present in his body and blood = in the Holy Eucharist. But I can't imagine you, or any other Orthodox = believer, disagreeing with this.

You seem to eschew theological reflection of all sorts. Having read a = fair amount of the Eastern fathers, I think it is fair to say that they = were much more willing to engage in intellectual articulation of the = catholic faith than you seem to be willing to do. I am thinking here in = particular of Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians (especially Gregory = Nyssen), Hilary, and St. Augustine. I think the same can also be said = about some contemporary Orthodox theologians like John Zizioulas. Are = they guilty of unwarranted "objectification" also?

With regard to what is obviously an intra-Orthodox disagreement on the = understanding of the Eucharistic Presence, I do not understand why you = cannot simply say that such disagreement exists within Orthodoxy. There = are some who believe that the Orthodox understanding is quite similar to = Catholicism and are, with qualifications, comfortable to even using the = language of transubstantiation to speak of the change of the elements, = and there are those who believe that the Western view is really = off-the-wall and represents a dramatic corruption of the true faith. = What interests me is how Schmemann and Trembelas can speak so = "authoritatively" about what Orthodoxy confesses about the Sacrament of = the Altar and yet be in such strong disagreement. I'm used to finding = such disagreements in Anglicanism. I'm surprised to find them within = Orthodoxy. It's insufficient to dismiss the disagreement as a = difference in perspective. The fact remains, some Orthodox believers = believe, on the basis of their liturgical experience, that the Orthodox = and Latin formulations are fundamentally compatible, and others believe, = on the basis of their liturgical experience that the respective = formulations are incompatible. And both parties are theologizing on the = basis of the same liturgy. =20

> Also, I find it interesting that your question seems to = have been posed initially as a setup. In other words, you already knew = the answer in your own mind that you would accept. So you wanted, = perhaps?, to see how Orthodox people would mishandle the question, in = order to justify the Anglican "position." =20 > =20

I have no idea what you mean when you say that I have set up you and = this list, and I resent the implication. I have no desire to justify an = Anglican position, any Anglican position, at all! I happen to be = serving in a small denomination that is rapidly embracing apostasy. As = far as I can determine, Anglicanism has a twofold future--part of it = will move off into apostasy and the other part will move into = full-fledge evangelicalism. I cannot participate in either of these two = futures. =20

It should be clear from my postings that my queries are not purely = academic (though I do hope to eventually write a theological article on = the Eucharist sometime this year--I have been previously published in = the Anglican Theological Review, Sewanee Theological Review, the = Scottish Journal of Theology, Interpretation, Worship, and Faith and = Philosophy, and have edited two books on language for God--just in case = you are interested in my credentials). I have no desire to engage in = idle debate. If I have an agenda, my agenda is to invite substantive = reflection and discussion on the Eucharist. As I mentioned in my = previous post, I have particular concerns about the possible dualism of = transubstantiation and am interested to see what Orthodoxy might = contribute to my own intellectual wrestling with these questions and = with my own ecclesial future.

In Christ, AFK+ =20

[Alvin Kimel]

Matthew, can you clarify what you mean by systematisation. Are you = speaking of a theological presentation of the catholic faith, with each = piece fitting into a nice coherent, consistent system? If so, then I = well understand the Orthodox reluctance to do theology in such a = fashion. But would John Damascene's Exposition qualify as such a = systematic theology? And what do you think of Dumitru Staniloae's = multi-volume *Dogmatic Theology*? But if this is not what you are = thinking about, then I'm afraid I do not understand your criticism. = Transubstantiation was not developed as part of a systematic theological = structure. The doctrine has two primary sources: (1) the Western = Church's spiritual experience of our Lord's sacrament presence in the = Mass and (2) the heretical teachings of Berengar and his symbolic = understanding of the Real Presence, which forced the Church to delve = more deeply into this mystery of faith. Transubstantiation's roots, in = other words, are spiritual and pastoral. If you have not read it, you = may find James. T. O'Connor's historical treatment of the Real Presence, = The Hidden Manna, to be of interest. It's written from a confirmed = Catholic viewpoint, but it's nonpolemical, scholarly, and clearly = written. I wish someone would eventually get around to reprinting = Darwell Stone's magisterial two-volume History of the Doctrine of the = Holy Eucharist.

In Christ, AFK+ =20

[Alvin Kimel]

Oops, my apologies for the formatting of my previous two posts. I see now that the bulletin board cannot handle rich text formatting.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Matthew, can you clarify what you mean by systematisation. Are you speaking of a theological presentation of the catholic faith, with each piece fitting into a nice coherent, consistent system? If so, then I well understand the Orthodox reluctance to do theology in such a fashion. But would John Damascene's Exposition qualify as such a systematic theology? And what do you think of Dumitru Staniloae's multi-volume *Dogmatic Theology*?

I would consider the description you've offered here of 'systematisation' to be roughly equivalent to that of which I was speaking. Orthodox theology is grounded in the mystical experience of God's direct relational activity with the human person and the whole of the cosmos. As such, its only 'system' is that of the living being of the Church - the whole of the human race embraced in the economy of God. This gives rise to the consistent teaching of the Church, that its belief must be rooted in the same experience that engenders that belief: one can only know the doctrinal reality surrounding the holy Eucharist through experience of it; one can only know the doctrine surrounding the person of the Mother of God through experience of the life of worship that involves her.

Anything which breaks out of this realm of experience, falls into the context of specific pastoral (whether personal or communal) concerns. And such is often required, for reasons you have brought up: an Arius requires an Athanasius; an Apollinarius requires a Cyril - and with them, the doctrinal clarification of points 'in contest' through the combat of heretical challenge. But such clarification is always embraced by the Church as clarifying the eternal Truth of the faith through the context of a given occasion. The teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers bring profound clarity to our conception of the holy Trinity; but we cannot wrend their writings away from the Arian/neo-Arian controversies in which they were composed and to which they spoke. We cannot 'codify' even their thought in such a way as 'answers' the question of Trinitarianism; else we should miss the truth we learn from St Gregory Palamas, St Symeon, and others. These are written manifestations of the experience of truth and reality in holy lives.

And so, back to the Eucharist. When I spoke above of the 'systematisation' that is anathema to Orthodox and the primary basis of a rejection of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (noting that there are other objections as well), it was primarily in this vein. To formulate a neat, coherent dogma of the transcendent realities of this mystery is to fail to appreciate the experiential nature of mystery. We can (and do) speak in great detail, thought-out reflection and at times very philosophical language about aspects of the Eucharistic mystery; but never can these words make systematic what is, at its heart, an eternal mystery.

And to the followup question: St John of Damascus' Exact exposition (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/damascene/exposition.shtml) must be read with an appreciation for its context. St John never himself claims that this is the full 'handbook' of the teaching of the Church: it is a compendium of the thought of the Fathers gone before him, addressed to the faithful in a community where such knowledge was being lost, and challenged on all sides. It is ultimately a situational and pastoral work.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

And to the followup question: St John of Damascus' Exact exposition must be read with an appreciation for its context. St John never himself claims that this is the full 'handbook' of the teaching of the Church: it is a compendium of the thought of the Fathers gone before him, addressed to the faithful in a community where such knowledge was being lost, and challenged on all sides. It is ultimately a situational and pastoral work.

Such is the case with all who have attempted to make the Faith available to the otherwise uninformed masses. I don't believe any "systematizer" thinks that his or hers is the last word on a subject, or the only way to put it, certainly not Melanchthon who, as I said,learned the art from the Damascene.

Also, I understand the apophatic nature of "the mystery [singular OR plural] of the Faith," but I fear lest we lean to close to the idea that we are talking about secrets God keeps from us. "Mystery," after all, is translated by "Sacrament," such that when the Orthodox speak of "Mystical theology" they mean "sacramental," i.e., the way God comes to us revelationally in his created things: bread, water, wine, oil,a word etc.

Richard

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps, Alvin, what you mean as dualistic, I mean by objectification. In any case, I think I'm being fairly dutiful to the Greek Fathers in saying that God cannot be objectified. God is not an object of cognition, God is not a thing that has existence. God is Beyond. We only can know God in and through the things He has made (the principle of concreteness). But then only through meditation and in the context of a transformation of our sense perception and intellect.

Some perceive Him more concretely, those who are given this gift of perception, to the extent God is willing to reveal Himself. If you took a photo of Christ's Ascension it would not show up on the negative. it could only be "seen" by those who had been given the spiritual eyes to see His ascension. Likewise, with the Eucharist. A chemist will not recognize Christ in the eucharist. A protestant will not recognize Christ in the eucharist. This is why, traditionally, the eucharist was not open to the catechumens. They had no capacity to recognize Christ in the eucharist and would thereby despoil it and be putting their own souls at risk.

The theology of Orthodoxy is a theology of participation. Participation not simply in the rights and rituals in a mechanistic sense, but participation in the classical Greek sense of union with the reality.

Therefore, knowledge of God in Orthodoxy is more like seeing that it is like cognition, because there must be an identification. Otherwise, our senses will be distracted by demonic forces and we will only see the surface reality of things.

You may wish to look at St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain's Spiritual Counsels in this matter. But as always, Orthodox philosophical discourse is profoundly Biblical (I speak only of the things that I have seen and heard).

There really is no such thing as theology in Orthodoxy as such. There is theologizing, but only in the pastoral context which Matthew has pointed out, which involves some transformation of our intellect and sense perception as a prerequisite. And this is not something that can be engineered. It happens in the context of, let's admit it, holiness. And what is the criterion of holiness? So, you see, everything must be connected. We cannot define the eucharist, or what happens in the eucharist, or even speak about the eucharist without first becoming holy. No less than St. Gregory the Theologian bemoaned the fact that theology had become the topic of cocktail party banter. There is something so holy about the Holy Mysteries that we ought not even speak about it publicly, but only in a very holy setting and context, among the faithful.

As for credentials, I suspect the general Orthodox opinion would be to respect the efforts of theological writers, but to put much more stock in the non-verbal piety of a peasant in response to the eucharist.

[Alvin Kimel]

What I mean by "dualistic" is quite different than what you mean by "objectification." When I speak of dualism I am thinking of that way of thinking that tends to separate divine and creaturely reality, as we might see in Nestorius's handling of the person of Christ. St. Cyril, on the other hand, insisted on understanding Jesus as a personal unity. While one might, intellectually, distinguish his divine and human natures, concretely he is simply the _one_ incarnate Word. (As a side-note, the two Western theological traditions that are most clearly Cyrilian are the Lutheran and the Anglo-Catholic traditions.) Perhaps the same dualism is at work with the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation--there's the species and then there's the body and blood of Christ _under_ the species. A nondualist approach would prefer simply to speak of the Eucharistic elements as being the body and blood of Christ. Anyway, that's my thought and what I was hoping to get some help on from the group here.

Regarding your assertion that God is not an object, I strongly disagree, precisely because of the Incarnation. In Christ Jesus God has objectified himself in our humanity and thus given to the Church a true knowlege of himself. This is the radical significance of the Nicene homoousion. Through Christ we are graciously given to know God as he is. "All things that are in the Father are beheld in the Son," St. Basil writes, "and all things that are the Son's are the Father's; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all that the Father has in himself. Thus the Person of the Son becomes as it were the Form and Face of the knowledge of the Father, and the Person of the Father is known in the Form of the Son" (Ep 28.8). Or as Athanasius pithily put it: Jesus is the "dominical man."

Apart from the Incarnation, God can only be known by his works; that is to say, he can only be known from the Creator/creature relationship. We are thereby reduced to vague, general and negative terms. This is, of course, the way of all non-Christian forms of apophaticism, what we typically call negative theology. But as it was pointed out by Gregory Nazianzen, if one cannot say anything positive about God, then one cannot say anything accurately about what he is not. Because Jesus is of one being and nature with the Father, we are actually given, through grace, to truly know God. Our knowledge of the Father, mediated through the Son, is grounded in the divine being itself. And in thus knowing and apprehending God as he is self-revealed in the human nature of his Son, we discover that the Creator of the universe is incomprehensible, ineffable, and ultimately beyond all our words and concepts. We will never know _what_ God is, but by his grace we do know him. Because our knowledge is firmly determined by God's self-objectification, our knowedge of God is accurate, faithful, and godly. The Father/Son relationship, therefore, transcends the Creator/creature relationship in our knowledge of the Deity. In the words of Thomas F. Thomas: "For Nicene theology, then, the mutual relation of knowing and being between the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ constitutes the ontological ground for our knowing of God, for in and through it our knowledge of God the Father is objectively roooted in the eternal being of God himself. Thus through union with Christ we are given access to knowledge of God as he is in his own being." (*The Trinitarian Faith*, p. 59. This entire book is a revelation!).

In any case, I did not start this thread to start a debate but rather to invite discussion on the Real Presence. But in light of your last two paragraphs, Owen, I see that a true _theological_ discussion is virtually ruled out of court on Monachos, at least with all of us non-Orthodox believers out here in the Court of the Gentiles. I guess I'll just go say my prayers now ...

AFK+

[Owen Jones]

Try thinking of Orthodox theology as non-Cartesian. There is an absolute distinction between Created and Uncreated, but that is not the same distinction as between subject and object. This is the tragedy of most Western Catholic and Protestant theology. There is nothing objectively true about God, nor is God an object of a knowing subject, or else every person in the world with a scientific or engineering training would be an Orthodox Christian. As the English would say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. There is no archimedean point from which you can look at Orthodox theology and assess it or critique except from within it, whilst living it. It would be like my critiquing bridge building without any practical knowledge of engineering.

You can certainly question it or doubt it if you wish, but why not give it a try first? Why not, for example, pledge to yourself to forsake the complex theological questions for a while and commit to attend Orthodox liturgical services for a year, in a parish that has a full liturgical cycle, and commit to reciting the Jesus prayer 500 times daily, and to fast rigorously (and feast rigorously as well!!!) at the appointed times in the calendar, and then come back and we'll talk some more about Orthodox theology.

Owen Jones

[Isaac David]

With respect to Owen's last comment, I can say that as an Anglican convert to Orthodoxy, I had read many books in preparation and thought I "understood" Orthodoxy when I was received a year ago. In the course of the last year I have had to junk some of the ideas I had picked up as a Protestant trying to grasp Orthodoxy intellectually and I'm sure I will have to lose many more. I now find that I no longer "understand" the Protestantism I left. Sure, I can understand it intellectually, but its meaning has somehow changed in the light of my experience in the Orthodox Church. There really is no substitute for being on the inside.

Isaac David

[Alvin Kimel]

The converse also obtains, which would explain why so many Orthodox folk seem to misunderstand, and misrepresent (unintentionally, I'm sure--at least I hope so), Western Christianity.

But I do not accept the premise that meaningful communication between two different religious communities, particularly among those communities that confess Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, is impossible. Difficult, perhaps, but not impossible.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Alvin Kimel Posted on Tuesday, 11 March
"When I speak of dualism I am thinking of that way of thinking that tends to separate divine and creaturely reality, as we might see in Nestorius's handling of the person of Christ. St. Cyril, on the other hand, insisted on understanding Jesus as a personal unity."
-------

The above quote examples precisely what Owen and Matthew have attempted to explain. Notice how St. Cyril is described as insisting that we 'undestand' "Jesus as a personal unity." This simply is not an Orthodox idea being conveyed. We are not encourged, to be, "understanding Jesus as a personal unity."

We KNOW that Jesus is GOD-MAN and this knowing informs our understanding, and this understanding enables us to recognize that which is false or pseudo-knowledge in the experience of "knowing" which others confess.

It is important that we hold these matters up to their proper category; which is confession: "I believe..."

Errant Christianities begin with 'I understand...'


Also by Alvin Kimel on Wednesday, 12 March
"But I do not accept the premise that meaningful communication between two different religious communities, particularly among those communities that confess Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, is impossible. Difficult, perhaps, but not impossible."
------
It all depends upon what is meant by 'meaningful.' Arius and Nestorious could not have meaningful communications with others who confessed Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.

john