On the road ETWN had a program about our protestant brothers and this subject. I know the Catholic belief but was wondering about the not in communion with the Catholic (Rome) church. I do not know if any of you know the answers, but I would assume that all of the orthodox churches have this as a matter of faith. It is only the later schisms that produced this aberation of faith. I find solace that the 'eastern rite' churches are still associated with us in one holy church. I am a convert (30 years ago) with a fundementalist Baptist backgroud although I was never really involved deeply in that church.

The Orthodox Church does not define "when" the change takes place in the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Western Scholastic way but does proclaim that the Change happens as in the LIturgy "making the Change by Thy Holy Spirit" at the Epiclesis.

Just to add a little, Transubstanionation is not to objectionable to most orthodox.

__________________________________
clipped from monachos.net

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.

The term I know is "TRANSUBSTANTATION".

Actually I have a Greek Orthodox Catechism that teaches "the situation in which the bread and wine by the power of the Holy Spirit become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, is called TRANSUBSTANTATION."

In the ROCOR site in Spanish (Bishop Alexander's site) it is clearly defined that the Orthodox Church does not deny or condemn the doctrine of transubstantation, it just doesn't adhere to the intellectual views of St. Thomas Aquinas on this subject. On the other side Orthodoxy condemns those who deny that Christ in all his Divinity is present through in sacred species (the Protestants.)

Father Schmemann's book about the Eucharist exposes what is the difference between the approach of St. Thomas and the Patristic theology of the Eucharist (at the end you learn that there's no difference, it's just that the Latins are more complicated )

But if the Orthodox Churches state that the change takes place sometime during the Liturgy or more specifically sometime during the Epiklesis, isn't it defining "when" the change takes place, just not as specifically as the Catholic Church?

Logos Teen

Dear Logos Teen,

The term "transubstantiation" is not a specifically Orthodox term, and while it is indeed used by some Orthodox for the sake of convenience, it is rejected by others who prefer the simpler terms of "transmutation," "transformation," or "change." The Orthodox are not so interested as the Latins in the scientific "how" of the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and most prefer to leave the "how" (as defined in the Scholastic definition of "transubstantiation") to the realm of Mystery.

As to the exact moment of the change, most Orthodox would prefer to leave that in the realm of Mystery also, some saying at a time during the Divine Liturgy without specifying exactly when, others saying that if a definite moment in the Liturgy could be ascertained, it would certainly be at the conclusion of the Epiklesis and the triple "Amen's" which immediately follow it that we know by faith that the change has occurred (as Brian inferred).

OrthodoxEast

Dear Friends,

Yes, you will find a variation of belief on this subject among Eastern Catholics.

Those of us who are Orthodox-Catholics in communion with Rome see the Orthodox liturgical theology as our own in this respect.

The Western fascination with pinpointing an exact moment when the Transmutation occurs is something that was never shared in the East.

All Three Persons of the Trinity are involved in the Action, the Anamnesis, the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis - they are all integrally linked.

After the final "Amen" at the end of the Epiclesis, that closes the actual Canon, we know that there is no more bread and wine on the Altar, but the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ.

WHEN this happens - we can never know. We can only know this HAS HAPPENED following the Canon.

This also reflects the characteristic great focus on the entire Holy Trinity that the Eastern Church has as well as underlining the great role of the Holy Spirit in the Epiclesis.

We are also called to change our own selves into Christ through the constant Epiclesis of the Jesus Prayer.

Alex

Dear friends,

In the West it is believed that Jesus "held His body in His hands" at the Last Supper where He instituted the Eucharist. But the West grants that the phrases "this is my body" and "this is the cup of my blood" are sufficient, even without an explicit epiclesis.

Does the Orthodox Church teach that Jesus used an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit at the Last Supper? This would make sense.

in Christ,
Marshall

Yes, I know.

Alex, I don't understand this statement. If you know that is "HAS HAPPENDED following the Canon" and that it occurs sometime during the Liturgy, one has by definition knowledge of "WHEN this happens": sometime during the Liturgy, probably during the Epiklesis.

So it seems to me that the "when" has been explained and understood by both East and West, just more specifically by the West.

Logos Teen

No, the Eastern Orthodox don't believe in Transubstantiation.

There was a really good scrap back in the "Focus on Scripture" subforum, in the "icon of the trinity" thread, towards the end, say pages 6-9. Basically, some got upset to hear that the the Eastern Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) maintain that the bread and the wine "don't go away," but are present with His most precious body and blood.

It is an icon of the Incarnation. What one chooses to call this belief, I leave open, but it is definitely not transubstantiation.

A celebrant recently made an error while celebrating the Liturgy of John Chrysostom, he said "and show these gifts..." This is the wording from the Liturgy of Basil the Great, but I remind us of it here just to get folks started....

The related point that I would like participants to consider is this: Is God only present on earth when WE want Him to be and WE call Him to be?

With love in Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Reader Andrew,

I disagree with your view on the Orthodox understanding of the Transmutation of the bread and wine in Holy Communion - to me it smacks of Consubstantiation.

I disagree that this is Orthodoxy's official stance on the matter.

Please show us one authoritative source that would espouse what you have written on this subject.

Otherwise, have a nice day!

Alex

Dear Alex,

I'll have a nice day anyway.

I'll also check some sources and get back to you tomorrow.

In Christ,
Andrew.

That sounds a little bit Protestantized. Priests always tell me that the symbol does not contradict his real prersence in the Eucharist, but that his real presence is much mnore important. And the bread and wine do not remain within the sacred species, they tell me that's what the Lutherans belueve.

What I've always been told is that It is His Body and Blood, wholly, mysteriously, and not bread and wine. I think the objection to the doctrine of Transubstantiation is the detail it goes into about every neuron, cell, bone, etc, being present, while we just want to say, it's His Body and Blood, that's what He told us, and leave it at that. It also talks about how it becomes His Body and Blood, about the physical axioms remaining the same while the substance changes, while we prefer just to say, it's His Body and Blood, and leave it at that without worrying about more. Saying that the bread and wine is still present sounds like Protestant influence, and contradicts everything I've every been taught. I think sometimes some Orthodox go too far in distincing themselves from the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so that they accidentally fall into the heresy of Consubstantiation, or worse.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "transubstantiation" is not a specifically Orthodox term, and while it is indeed used by some Orthodox for the sake of convenience, it is rejected by others who prefer the simpler terms of "transmutation," "transformation," or "change."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I know.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN this happens - we can never know. We can only know this HAS HAPPENED following the Canon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex, I don't understand this statement. If you know that is "HAS HAPPENDED following the Canon" and that it occurs sometime during the Liturgy, one has by definition knowledge of "WHEN this happens": sometime during the Liturgy, probably during the Epiklesis.

So it seems to me that the "when" has been explained and understood by both East and West, just more specifically by the West.

Logos Teen