www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Bread and Wine

chiahead,

Part of the process of asking questions and getting answers is the integration of those answers into one's thinking process. Just to be sure you got it, the Eastern Catholic Churches do not use the term "Mass" in reference to our Liturgies. Since this forum is a Byzantine forum, the appropriate term is "Divine Liturgy." The word "Mass" is derived from the Latin dismissal, "Ite, misae est." and, therefore, does not apply to the Divine Liturgy.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Chia - An excellent website for info about the Eastern Rites is www.byzantines.net [byzantines.net] - lots of good articles on Eastern Holy Days, traditions, and theology.

(If only I could get around to reading the 200+ pages I've printed off from them, I'd be all set...)

And if what we taste and see in the post-consecrational chalice only appears to be bread and wine, then what we see in Jesus Christ only appears to be a man.

If we keep the two symbols in parallel, we will not err in our understanding.

In the Risen God-Man Christ,
Andrew

PS: An angel is a messenger, be he or she corporeal or non-corporeal.

Hi and welcome,

While others might frown upon your choice of words, I think their candor speak of honesty. I like that.

I'd like to add to the many good responses you've received, that the Eucharist is not only a re-enactment of the Last Supper, but actually a Re-presentation (as in making present again) of the whole Paschal mystery of Our Lord (and in fact, of the whole History of Salvation).

A symbolic meaning of having the Eucharistic gifts "separated", as you say, is to indicate the sacrificial nature of the celebration.

The way to sacrifice an animal in the Jewish tradition was by bleeding it and the blood, the life-force of a living thing, was an essential element of the ritual of the sacrifice.

Our Lord, who is also our Paschal Lamb, also shed His precious blood in sacrifice for us. By consecrating the bread separated from the wine, we are confessing that the sacrifice of Christ is a true sacrifice. Christ died indeed, His blood was shed, His soul separated from His body.

But things didn't stay that way. Christ was risen from the dead. Christ took His life again. The whole Christ rose from the dead.

We symbolize that by (re-)uniting the Eucharistic species. In the Latin West, this is done with a single small particle of the host, in the Byzantine East, this is done with all the particles of the Lamb that will be used for Holy Communion.

In some places, even the Roman Church gives Holy Communion with both species by intinction, that is, the Host is "dipped" into the Chalice, and then given to the communicant (of course, on the tongue). When that is done, we also receive both species "together", much like in the Byzantine Church.

Even more, a Byzantine Church, the Melkite, favors intinction over the spoon as the standard way to minister Holy Communion.

I'd give you a word of caution:

It is easy for us Romans to think about Rome as the center of the universe and the source of all things Catholic.

When we fall into this temptation, it also becomes easy to think about other liturgical traditions in our Church as tolerated departures from the Roman norm.

I may be wrong, but I think this line of thought might be behind your phrase "what changes have occured".

The truth of the matter is that both the Latin and the Byzantine Churches can track a fairly independent liturgical development all the way back in time to a point when the common source was neither Roman nor Byzantine, probably even of direct apostolic influence, or at least early post-apostolic.

The Byzantine liturgical tradition is as venerable, legitimate, catholic and apostolic as the Latin tradition. Its right to exist within the Church comes from its own, not from its relationship with the Latin rite.

While it is very laudable and spiritually profitable to experience and study the different liturgical traditions, it is essential that we start this experience and study with the correct backgrounds, and the correct assumptions.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Chiahead,
Christ is Risen!
Welcome to the Byzantine Forum!
To answer you question regarding the comingling of the elements at Communion. During the early centuries, in the Greek Churches in Antioch and Constantinople, and in those Churches influenced by them, distributed the Holy Eucharist at the Holy Table separately until around the beginning of the sixth Century. Then it slowly began to change to its present usage in most Byzantine Churches of comingling the elements and distributing them on a golden spoon. The reasons behind this change are obscure, but they apparently include an increasing separation between the Clergy and laity, a declining number of Deacons in the smaller Churches, problems with hygiene, and possible desecration. Some even include the length of time it took to distribute Holy Communion, although this was also the time when some of the Fathers were complaining about the lack of people receiving Holy Communion.

2) In the Byzantine tradition there is properly no "moment" when the metamorphosis (change) takes place in the gives. It simply happens (period). The priest calls down the Holy Spirit on the gifts in the Epiclesis, but that is not to say that that "moment" is the "time" of the "change." If, for example, I was to completely run out of the Eucharist at a Divine Liturgy. I would return to the Holy Table, have more of the Gifts brought to me, and then recite again the entire Anaphora consecrating the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In the debate between "Trans" and "Con" substantion, this debate never really existed in the Byzantine Church until after the Protestant Reformation. This debate requires an acceptance of a certain philosophical understanding of "substance" and accidence", or "what something is" versus "Its appearance, taste, smell, and other attributes." The Fathers clearly hold that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. They do not clearly state what "happens" to the bread or the wine. It appears to me that the Fathers never viewed this as a legitimate question.
thanks for your interest,
Fr. Vladimir

Dear Fr. Vladimir,

Christ is Risen!

Metamorphosis comes into English in the calque tranfiguration. Morphe means shape. The Greek calque for Transubstantiation is metousiosis, ousia being substance or essence, like in homoousios/jedinosu�čnyj. That term however is rejected according to Meyendorff who says that preferred terms are metabole, metastoicheiosis, and metarrhythmisis.

Looking further at the Slavonic might be helpful. Metamorphosis in Slavonic is Preobra�enie, the same name for the feast. Transubstantiation is Presu�čestvlenije, the su�č* root is likely familiar to you not only in the above example.

Tony

Brother Andrew, this is outright heresy.

Christ is TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN. But NOWHERE do we confess Him to be "true bread".

Thus, in Christ we have not the appearance of a man but a TRUE MAN, contra the Monophysites and the Docetists.

However, it is heresy, and contrary to the Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils to assert that we receive "true bread" at the Liturgy. I am speechless that an Orthodox Reader like yourself would make this claim. The whole darn point of the Anaphora is that the BREAD IS CHANGED into CHRIST.

LatinTrad

Yes, Dear Latin Trad,

Perhaps in your Tradition this is heresy, but not in the East.

Based upon your expressed attitude, you may have just pointed out another reason why the two Churches may not find union.

A premier Orthodox Theologian, the roots of whose jurisdiction (the OCA) are in the Byzantine Rite Catholics of the Unia, Fr. Hopko, refers in one place in his book, The Orthodox Faith, to the post-consecrational Chalice as containing bread and wine. In another place, as I recall, of course, he refers to the same post-consecrational chalice as containing the body and blood of Christ.

Fully God and fully man, Christ comes to redeem and sanctify the created world, not to make it go away. For He saw His creation and that it was good.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Now, understanding the contents of the post-consecrational chalice takes us back to the issue of the symbol of the Eucharist.

Just as we cannot separate the Human Christ from the Divine Christ, we cannot separate the Bread & Wine from the Body & Blood. They have been "cast" or "thrown" together, forming a new reality, the symbol. The symbol has two, real distinct constituents, but they cannot be separated and their distinction may not easily be discerned by us.

This is a truly Eastern approach and one which may drive those schooled in the Western methodologies to the edge of..um...frustration. Or as my Opus Dei friend once called it, "the inscrutable mysticism of the East."

In Christ,
Andrew

I'd like to know if any other Easterners agree with Andrew that the Bread and Wine continue to be present along with the Body and Blood.

I didn't think that the East held the Eucharist to consist of "two elements" Bread/Wine and Body/Blood.

In the West we believe it is just Body/Blood. The transubstantiation is complete.

LT

Maybe we are looking at this problem from the wrong way. In the Latin tradition, the "accidents" are considered not a "part" of the substance itself. Hence the eucharistic species is truly the substance of Christ with only his appearance.

If I am understanding Andrew's line of thinking which I could be wrong, that what I would call the "accidents" are seen as being more a part of the substance of the bread and wine. It is like that old saying, "if looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and acts like a horse, then it isn't a zebra."

In the Eucharistic prayers of the west there are many references to the bread and wine after the consecration takes place.

I- "bread of life and cup of eternal salvation"
II- "life-giving bread, this saving cup"
IV- "who shae this bread and wine into the one body of Christ"

So maybe it is how we define bread and wine from are own unique traditions that is the problem here.

Hope this makes sense,
Devo

I am even more confused and upset.

It is absolutely central to the FAITH that the Holy Eucharist, in spite of the fact that it looks like bread etc., IS NOT BREAD.

If you say it looks like bread and smells like bread therefore it is bread, then that is not looking at the Eucharist through the eyes of Faith.

It IS NOT BREAD.

The phrase "bread of life and cup of eternal salvation" does NOT indicate that the substance on the paten is "bread". It is the "Bread" OF LIFE--Christ says "I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE." Therefore, the Eucharist is Christ. Not bread.

It seems simple to me.

The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Not bread and wine.

LatinTrad

I didn't mean to use that quote to say that the Eucharistic species did not under go transubstantation. I meant that saying to apply to the accidents that remained after the consecration took place.

Sorry for the confusion,
Devo

With apologies to Andrew, I note that he has not responded to my previous post on this thread, referring him to Orthodox sources on the matter of Transubstantiation. Instead of spouting polemics, surely it makes better sense to go to the sources?
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Dear Unrecognizable One,

Some sources off the top of my polemic-spouting head, since my internet access and library are in different locations:

The Orthodox Faith by The Very Rev. Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko:
In this four-volume book, popularly named "the Rainbow Series," there is a reference to the post consecrational chalice containing bread and wine.

St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, Liturgical Theology 101, Prof. Paul Meyendorff, class notes 1994-95:
bread and wine are present along with body and blood of the Savior. We do not subscribe to Transubstantiation.

Observed liturgical practice:
Metropolitan Theodosius, former Archbishop of Washington, et al, add unconsecrated wine to the post-consecrational chalice.

In the divine Christ who joined himself to and assumed the human in all but sin,
Andrew