< Page:Orthodox Eastern Church (Fortescue).djvu
There was a problem when proofreading this page.
385
THE ORTHODOX FAITH

and Blood of the Lord under the appearance and figure of

bread and wine, that is under the accidents of bread ... so also that the Body and Blood of the Lord are held and divided by our hands and teeth, yet only by accident ((Greek characters), per accidens), that is according to the accidents of bread and wine."[1] It has been said that the Synod of Jerusalem repre- sents a Romanizing tendency and a very strong reaction against Lukaris's Protestantism. However, Mogilas says the same thing; he answers the question: "What is the third Sacrament ((Greek characters))? The Holy Eucharist, or the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine in which really and properly, that is, in actual fact ((Greek characters)), Jesus Christ is present."[2] Indeed, it is impossible to find an Orthodox definition of this Sacrament which does not exactly coincide with the Catholic faith. Nor did they ever attempt to establish a difference on this point. As for the word, they always say (Greek characters), which is an exact version of Transub- stantiation ((Greek characters) = trans; (Greek characters) = substantia). And in the Russian translation of the Acts of Jerusalem they form a derived word from the Latin Transubstantiatio (transsubstantziatzija). More- over, when Mr. Palmer showed his book with a denial of this faith to the Archpriest Koutnevich, the Archpriest promptly said: "But we believe and teach transubstantiation."[3] Quite lately, however, some of their theologians are disposed to deny it. What they appear to mean is that they are not disposed to commit themselves to all the scholastic theory of substance and accident.[4] To which we may answer that we also distinguish between the defined dogma and its philosophical explanation, and that the Catholic Church has never officially committed herself to all the theories by which her theologians try to explain her mysteries. Certainly all their definitions abun- dantly satisfy us, and they could not have any difficulty in accepting the decree of Trent on Transubstantiation.[5] As for

1 Dositheus: decr. 17.

2 Conf. Orth. i, qu. 106.

3 Visit, p. 145.

4 So the note about Philaret of Moscow in Headlam: The Teaching of the Russian Church, pp. 8-9.

5 Sess. xiii. cap. 4, Denz. p, 758.

  1. ↑ 1
  2. ↑ 2
  3. ↑ 3
  4. ↑ 4
  5. ↑ 5
This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.