Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Our Church and Roman Catholic Sacraments

2»

Comments

  • Severian
    I have been told that "validity" is a Latin theological term and not an Orthodox one, nevertheless I use it out of convenience.
  • COPT.Mark
    Your link says:

    Thomas Acquinas from the Catholic Church is the one who introduced the term "transubstantiation" and it describes the process of change itself. The Orthodox Church refuses to use the term; since it is a mystery and cannot be explained. That is why we use the term "change" and we admit that we cannot describe the process; as  it is a mystery. In response and reaction to the term "transubstantiation", Martin Luther, who also rejected the term, introduced another term, "consubstantiation" meaning equal. This opened the door for the protestant denial of the reality of the change of the bread and wine to the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Here's how Thomas Aquinas used the word:

    And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called "transubstantiation."

    Find me a problem with his usage. 

    Granted, he goes on and on and on about the process, but the word "transubstantiation" is used by him merely to mean the substance is changed.

    Let me point out that we get the word "consubstantial" from Apollinaris.  Surely you won't say we need to stop saying that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us because we get the word from Apollinaris (I assume you know the issue with him).

    The word "Sacrament" - now there's a Catholic word :).
  • Severian
    [quote author=COPT.Mark link=topic=12200.msg143835#msg143835 date=1314582639]
    Your link says:

    Thomas Acquinas from the Catholic Church is the one who introduced the term "transubstantiation" and it describes the process of change itself. The Orthodox Church refuses to use the term; since it is a mystery and cannot be explained. That is why we use the term "change" and we admit that we cannot describe the process; as  it is a mystery. In response and reaction to the term "transubstantiation", Martin Luther, who also rejected the term, introduced another term, "consubstantiation" meaning equal. This opened the door for the protestant denial of the reality of the change of the bread and wine to the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Here's how Thomas Aquinas used the word:

    And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called "transubstantiation."

    Find me a problem with his usage.Fine, but we understand the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood differently from RCs. They like to philosophize as to how the bread and wine change, while the Orthodox don't.

    Let me point out that we get the word "consubstantial" from Apollinaris.

    Actually, it originated from the Gnostic heretics. The phrase "mia physis" -as in "mia physis tou theo logou sesarkomene"- (supposedly) originated from Apollinaris.

    Ultimately, we have drifted off topic. The point is that our venerable hierarchs seem to be hinting at the fact that the RCC does have a grace-filled Eucharist. So what are your thoughts?
  • COPT.Mark

    Fine, but we understand the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood differently from RCs. They like to philosophize as to how the bread and wine change, while the Orthodox don't.

    You, me, and a lot of other people on these forums philosophize about any given term or concept all day long, doesn't mean that other people can't use that term or concept :).

    Actually, it originated from the Gnostic heretics. The phrase "mia physis" -as in "mia physis tou theo logou sesarkomene"- (supposedly) originated from Apollinaris.

    That strengthens my point (and when I said we get "consubstantial" from Apollinaris, I meant the full concept/phrase, not just the word).

    Ultimately, we have drifted off topic. The point is that our venerable hierarchs seem to be hinting at the fact that the RCC does have a grace-filled Eucharist. So what are your thoughts?

    Fair enough.  I wasn't going to comment, but I might as well.  I'm not so convinced by Fr. Peter's interpretations of the statements of Pope Shenouda and the other OO Patriarchs he quoted.  For example:

    Pope Shenouda and Pope Paul VI. The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.

    This could only be said by Pope Shenouda if he agreed that there was some life-giving quality to the Catholic experience of the sacraments.

    If a random person on the street asked me to sign a piece of paper that said “The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders,” I would sign it.

    I would sign it, while not knowing if that person is even Christian.  Why?  Because I agree with the statement.  It would not only be signed by me if I agreed that there was some life-giving quality to whatever that person does.

    Could Pope Shenouda think what Fr. Peter said?  Sure – we just can’t conclude that from that statement.

    Actually, it's funny - this ties back to the tangent.  I could agree with terminology even if I don't agree with a lot of background noise related to it.
  • Severian
    ^Some good points, I suppose this is just something we can never know for sure. Thanks for contributing. :)

    EDIT: Plus, not to second guess our Hierarchs or anything, but even if a few of them said that the RC Eucharist is grace-filled I still wouldn't be 100% convinced. While I truly believe, with all my heart, that the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches do have a real Eucharist, Priesthood, etc. that is because they have maintained the Orthodox faith and praxis. I am not 100% sure if the same can be said of the RCC, they have drifted from the faith through schism and heresy (let's avoid controversial terminology :) ). Even if they do have some grace, they do not have the fulness of grace found within Orthodoxy. What are your thoughts?
  • COPT.Mark
    Well, I like to stay away from the words "schism and heresy" just because it puts a bad taste in people's mouths ;).  Of course that is not to say there's a lot of anathemas out there.  But I'd put it this way - Oriental Orthodoxy is true and correct.  I consider Chalcedonian Orthodoxy to also be true and correct.  Only way I can think that is because of 553 AD.  That allows their usage of "in two natures" to have the same meaning as our "one nature" (and you know what I'm talking about, so I'll spare everyone the details).  The recent dialogue helps as well (their stubborn refusal to ratify the statement of 1990 aside).

    Apart from that, everyone else is just on a spectrum of how far they are from the OO.  Catholics are closer than many, so I'd naturally think there is something there.  In fact, there was a time (like 100 years ago) when a Catholic wouldn't have to be re-baptized to become Coptic.

    Here's why I don't like to speculate - a lot of people point their fingers and say "Stop judging!" to anyone that says "so and so" cannot be saved.  Here's another issue that I've always considered - making the reverse statement (i.e. "so and so" can be saved) when we're talking about those who don't follow the absolutely correct faith is just as much a judgment.  In other words, we do not know how far a Christian (i.e. someone who believes in Christ) can diverge from the absolutely true Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy) and still make it.  That's up to God to decide.  We can't tell Him how lenient to be.

    So, way I think about it - what we do know is that Orthodoxy takes you there.  So, try to convince as many people as possible of Orthodoxy, then we don't even have to consider the alternatives :).

    I know you were talking about the Eucharist/Sacraments and I brought salvation into it, but I think that's the ultimate point.  We call them "life giving mysteries" for a reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.