'Transubstantiation' and 'metaousia'

[Mina of Alexandria]

hi ...

1- does orthodoxy has another definition else than transubstantiation?

2-what is the term 'metaousa' ? is there a difference between transubstantiation and metaousia?

thanks!

[Kris]

1- does orthodoxy has another definition else than transubstantiation?


Dear brother,

As far as I know, the Orthodox Church has generally refrained from the use of (or at least, does not restrict Herself to), exact philosophical language to describe the transformation that takes place in the Eucharist, such as the transubstantiation of the Catholics or the consubstantiation of the Lutherans.

We simply affirm that what we receive in this Mystery is truly the Body of Christ and truly the Blood of Christ, under the forms of bread and wine. We do not speak of "accidents" and other such things, which is a Latin approach.

I'll have to let someone else comment on metaousia and its usages.

In XC,
Kris

[Mina of Alexandria]

brother Kris wrote :

"As far as I know, the Orthodox Church has generally refrained from the use of (or at least, does not restrict Herself to), exact philosophical language to describe the transformation that takes place in the Eucharist, such as the transubstantiation of the Catholics or the consubstantiation of the Lutherans:

I think restriction is needed so much , the seven holy councils did not do anything except restriction , that's why I think if it is true that orthodox church DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS EUCHARIST we need to make a great ecumenical council to declare our fixed and exact confess in many many points , and one of them is eucharist . I think we need a model like Vatican II , but first, what is metaousia , I don't know greek but I found it in the writings of many theologians .

thanks
in IC XC
Mina Mounir

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Mina

The role of the councils, as you describe, is not to define every aspect of theology, but to deal with particular controversies and challenges.

I am not quite sure why you believe, for instance, that the Church is not clear about the eucharist? A council cannot make a new faith, it can only clarify what is already believed, therefore I suggest that the Church is already as clear as it wishes to be about the eucharist.

The book I mentioned elsewhere, by Ezra Gebremedhin : The Life Giving Blessing, is a good survey of St Cyril's thought on the matter.

Best wishes

Peter

[Mina of Alexandria]

dear brother,

if u permit , I can't accept the concept that the rule of councils is only to discuss controversies , it is important to put definition of the faith , I never said that the council is to make new faith as u mentioned , but it is important to define and determine the faith with restrict rules and confessions like the creed of faith which was not considered a new faith . or like the chapters of st.Cyril to determine the true christology and close the door on the thoughts of prosopic union . chalcedon and constantinople 553which also determined and developed the previouse apostolic christological dogma by more deeper and consistent language against monophysitism.. the 7 ecumenical councils did that. today there are new challenges and many many issues need to be discussed , and an ethiopian researcher can't solve the philosophical challenges in eucharist in a book .

in IC XC
Mina Mounir

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Mina

I am not sure what you mean?

The councils do not define a new faith or invent any new teachings, they bear witness to that which is already the faith of the Church. Therefore a council is not required to determine what the Church believes about the eucharist, we need rather to learn from the Tradition and from the Fathers who have written and taught about the eucharist.

I do not quite understand why a book describing the teachings of St Cyril about the eucharist does not at least partially answer the need to undertstand the eucharist which you raised?

I think that in fact it is the case that the 7 councils were called to deal with particular controversies and for no other reason. If you look through the history you will see that they were called due to controversy relating to the Divinity of Christ, the nature of the Holy Spirit, various Christological controversies, and Iconoclasm. The Creed does not define the faith, it describes what had always been believed, and it was also the result of controversy, in that particular case the issue of Arianism.

Best wishes

Peter

[Mina of Alexandria]

what is metaousia?

[Paul Cowan]

what is metaousia?



communions prefer to use the term "Metaousia" when speaking of the Real Presence

I found this on the web as a google description entry.

This from Page 105 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Jah8iEYDxtUC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=metaousia&source=web&ots=1j9xVxLuhT&sig=oqjOtoUtWoGxgwavK-l_SAOlKsk#PPA105,M1)talking about St. Gregory of Nyssia.

I don't knwo if any of this helps with the definition. Hopefully Mike Stickles can use his Googling talents here?

Paul

[Michael Stickles]

Well, I'll take a shot at it.

Second part first. "ousios/ousia" is derived from the present active participle of the verb "eimi" ("to be"); it means "being", "nature" or "substance" (the Cappadocian Fathers used the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" to describe the Trinity).

"meta" used as a prefix tends to mean "change" or "movement elsewhere", as these NT words show:

"morpho-o" = to form, "metamorpho-o" = to change form.
"baino" = to walk, "metabaino" = to change place, i.e. "walk elsewhere".
"kaleo" = to call, "metakaleo" = to summon, i.e. "call over" or "call elsewhere".
"oikos" = abode, "metoikesia" = change of abode.

So, "metaousia" would mean "change of substance".

"Transubstantiation" means the same thing - "change of substance" - in a literal sense, but in usage is tied to Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist.

Mike

[Paul Cowan]

Mike,

I bow to your fingers.

Paul

[Anthony]

I thought the usual Greek term corresponding to transubstantiation (for those who use it) was "metousiosis". I have seen a few instances of "metaousia" on Google, but that does not normally seem to refer to a process.

Sorry if I am being pedantic (or just plain wrong).

[Michael Stickles]

I thought the usual Greek term corresponding to transubstantiation (for those who use it) was "metousiosis". I have seen a few instances of "metaousia" on Google, but that does not normally seem to refer to a process.

Sorry if I am being pedantic (or just plain wrong).

I did run across "metousiosis" while looking up "metaousia". They seem to be used identically for the most part in the various references. However, that could be due to confusion, as several sites contradicted each other as to what term was used when or where.

Since the root words are "meta" and "ousia", I'm not sure where the "osis" comes from in "metousiosis". Unfortunately, my Greek is still too rudimentary for me to figure it out on my own. And neither term appears in my Liddell and Scott Abridged Greek Lexicon, so I can't get a better grip on the issue that way.

In Christ,
Mike

[Anthony]

It is best to take it in two bits: the -o- forms verbs with the meaning component "make sth sth" (or sometimes "consider sth sth"). The -sis then makes that verb into a noun denoting that action or process. So met(a)-ousi(a)-o-sis - the process or action of making something change substance.

Meta-morph-o-sis is exactly parallel - the process of making something change shape. Also met-em-psych-o-sis and a host of others.

Metaousia by contrast is not a deverbal noun denoting a process or action (at least not etymologically, though I see that, as you say, some people use it in the same sense as metousiousis).

I hope Matthew or others will correct any mistakes here.

[RichardWorthington]

I think if it is true that orthodox church DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS EUCHARIST

The Orthodox Church knows very well what the Eucharist is:


Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the Lord. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on: as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, it happened that the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. (Judges 13:19-20)

The terms 'transubstantiation', 'consubstantiation', or 'in, with, and under the forms' probably arose from seeing the bread and wine, and then asking how they can become the Holy Body and Blood. They are all slightly different forms of the statement that "the outside stays the same, but the inner inside changes".

However, we seek the vision of the Incarnate Angel of the Lord: Speaking of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, Christ asked, "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?" (John 6:62). In our Orthodox Liturgy at the time of communion we sing, "Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord. The Lord is God and has appeared unto us" (Psalm 118:26,27).

Indeed the verse "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord" is very significant in this context. As Jesus says, "you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ " (Matt. 23:38-39). That is why at His coming into His church we sing during the Liturgy not only "Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of Thy glory" (quoting Isaiah 6:3, which Isaiah "said when he saw His glory", John 12:41), but also, "Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest" (quoting Psalm 118:26 above).


does orthodoxy has another definition else than transubstantiation?
As we sing at the end of the Liturgy, "We have seen the True Light", that True Light "which gives light to every man coming into the world" (John 1:9). And of course, as in the Transfiguration where it was not Christ who changed but the disciples, so too here. We not only pray for the Holy Spirit (http://www.sourozh.org/web/The_Divine_Liturgy%2C_Page_2#offering)to come upon the "gifts here set forth", but also upon us. To talk about transubstantiation without also talking about our own transfiguration into the Divine Glory is mere barren logic!

Richard