www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Transubstantiation

Dear Teen Logo,

I think there is a difference between pinpointing an exact moment, following the Words of Institution in the West, for the Transmutation/Transubstantiation, and saying "We don't know when that moment is - we just know the liturgical context/prayer during which it occurs.

Orthodox theologians have always resisted the notion that the Epiclesis is the "Formula of Transmutation."

The entire Canon needs to be celebrated.

One could say the Canon is the "Formula" but an Eastern theologian would never see it that way to begin with.

For the East, Christ is wholly present from the very beginning of the Divine Liturgy until the very end.

What you don't understand is how someone else can see the Divine Liturgy in terms other than those an RC would use.

That's fine - I used to do the same thing!

Alex

Logos Teen,

It is true that there is a moment when the gifts become the Eucharist.

The precise moment is a matter of debate within the Churches.

In the East favors the Epiclesis , in the West during the Narrative is the leading school of thought.

This shows highly in the emphasis of each Liturgy. The East has strong Epicleses, and in the case of the The Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, an implied Narrative at best.

In the Roman Liturgy, the Epiclesis is part of the Eucharistic Prayer, and, in most cases, is little more than implied. But it has a very strong Narrative.

So far, The Spirit hasn't chosen to reveal the precise point definitively to any Church.

I suppose since HE hasn't provided this particular tidbit of knowledge , it's probably not necessary for our Salvation

In the meantime, I'll just concentrate on being worthy at the moment I Communicate. That's the precise moment that matters most to me

Yours in Christ,

Brendan

Alex,

Well, I certainly don't have a problem with the Eastern notion that Christ is present throughout the liturgy.

I think I'm being misunderstood; perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. My point is that both the East and the West have decided when the consecration occurs. The East teaches that it occurs sometime during the liturgy, and the West teaches that it occurs at the words "This is My Body..." Just because the East hasn't said what the exact moment is (or even if there is an exact moment) when the ordinary bread and wine become the Body and Blood doesn't mean they haven't decided when it happens- - -y'all are just open to a larger time frame. The West has pinpointed it to the exact moment whereas the East has pinpointed it to sometime during the Liturgy.

I don't even know why I'm making this point, but I am!

Logos Teen

Don't both agree that it happnes after both the Institution Narrative and the Epiclesis, and it's just that in the West the Epiclesis comes first, so both are done after the Institution Narrative, and in the East the Institution Narrative comes first, so both are done after the Epiclesis?

Dear Logos Teen,

I would beg to differ. Neither Churches have made any DEFINATIVE statements on the subject.

Each have their own theories, but there has been no Council or Papal ex cathedra statement on this issue. Ergo, the 'moment' has NOT been decided.

Both agree, rightly so, that Full Presence exists after the full Canon. And that is all that has been decided.

See Coptic Orthodox's post above , CO's right on the money there

Yours in Christ.

-Brendan

Dear Scotus,

Well, I'm wondering about what you said with respect to the Western Church.

When the Pope, for example, pronounces the Words of Institution,"This is My Body," he immediately holds up the Host for adoration - does he not?

He then repeats this with the chalice.

If the Western Church did NOT believe the Transubstantiation occured following the Words of Institution, such adoration would be . . . idolatry, would it not?

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

Well, the East sees the Change occuring within the Eucharistic Canon, not throughout the entire Liturgy.

The Eucharistic Canon begins with the Thanksgiving to the Father or the "Anamnesis" and follows through with Christ's Words of Institution ending with the Epiclesis of Invocation of the Spirit that comes down on the Gifts.

The debate between East and West historically has tended to be focused on the Epiclesis vs. Words of Institution - are the Words sufficient or does one need the Epiclesis?

The West has said that the Words of Institution alone are all-sufficient and that the Epiclesis, if there is one in the Liturgy since there are Western Liturgies without them, fulfills liturgically "after the fact" of Consecration, i.e. the Descent of the Spirit on the Gifts, at the moment when the Words of Institution are pronounced.

The RC theologian Goar maintained that the Words of Institution change the bread and the wine, while the Epiclesis is there to make "moral changes in the communicants."

The difference between East and West is that:

a) The West sees the Priest acting in the Person of Christ pronouncing the Words of Institution - thus the lessened emphasis on an Epiclesis and the need for a more "exact moment of consecration."

b) The East sees the Holy Spirit acting through the passive agency of the Priest in the Epiclesis to effect the change that Christ made 2,000 years ago during the Mystical Supper - thus the emphasis on the prayer of invocation of the Eucharistic Canon where the exact moment CANNOT be known, but where this is left up to God. We can only know that after the prayer of the Canon the Change has already been made.

It is NOT the same thing as saying such and such, and then assuming the change has been made right away.

Let me put it to you another way.

Are the concluding three "Amens" of the Epiclesis the "Moment of Consecration" in the East?

We don't know.

For all we know, God could have achieved this miracle earlier.

We just know we have to invoke the Trinity in the Canon - after which point we know there is NO WAY that there is any more bread and wine on the Altar, but the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ.

THAT is NOT the same as saying "This is My Body" and then bowing down in adoration before It.

I know what you are going to say - isn't it the same thing, but that the East takes longer than the West?

No - and the West in its polemics with the East has ALWAYS insisted on the Words of Institution being the consecratory formula, not the Canon as a whole.

The difference lies in a different role for the Priest at the Altar in West and East.

In the West, the priest is an "Alter Christus" but in the East he is an "icon of Christ" who is simply the one empowered to invoke the Spirit to effect the Sacraments.

In the West, this emphasis has led to a certain clericalism or sacerdotalism that inflated the role and position of the priest - not so in the East.

So finally, the Canon of the Mass in the East is not to be seen as a longer version of the Words of Institution.

Eastern priests do not treat it as such. They do not say the Canon and then say, "Presto, changeo!"

They recite the Canon and trust God to have effected the Change during it, when, who knows (and the not knowing when is what drives the rationalistic West crazy ), but we know that after it, there is no more bread and wine on the altar . . .

The Epiclesis is not the "moment of transmutation" for the East.

The East doesn't see it in terms of a moment or even a longer moment. The East doesn't pretend to know what is the supreme Mystery.

Alex

Dear to Christ Alex,

Yes, it would be idolatry, but, as CopticOrthodox pointed out, the epiclesis happened BEFORE the Narrative in the Western Liturgies.

The West recognizes the occurrence of Real Presence as having occurred PRIOR to that point. If you will note in the RC Liturgy, the Bread and Wine are elevated and adored at different times. But that does NOT mean that they were Consecrated at different times.

It is recognition that they are both Holy and worthy of Adoration, but human frailty prohibits their elevation simultaneously.

And yes, most Western Theologians will point to the Narrative as 'the defining moment' But Pope St. Pius X chose NOT to rule on the subject, so there is no definative answer in the West.

As another note, John Paul II ruled that the Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari to be a Correct Liturgy and it has NO Narrative at all.

As far as Western Liturgies, I agree that most have very poor Epicleses, but each of the Novus Ordo Eucharistic Prayers and the Tridentine have one. Which Rite were you refering to that lacked an Epiclesis?

Yours in Christ,

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Yes, Pope St Pius X did not rule on that because of problems that could arise with the East.

There are some Western liturgies that had NO epiclesis at all, and the Orthodox have previously urged the West to add more of an overt epiclesis in the prayers following the Tridentine consecration.

The Novus Ordo included the Epiclesis in advance - an Easternizing trend that still allows for adoration of the Body and Blood of Christ following the Words of Institution.

Alex

But recently the Western Church and the Assyrian Church of the East established intercommunion, and the Assyrian Church does not have the words of the consacration that the West enphasizes so much "This is my Body". Their whole Anaphora works as a consacratory formula, according to Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope, and is a licit and valid mass. And even in the past centuries, when the first Nestorians entered to communion with Rome, the Popes never "forced" them to add the words, they just recommended it and many decided to put them in the Anaphora.

So both Churches have moderated thjeir possitions, or maybe they weren't as radical as they were presented before.

Dear Reader Alex,

Yet more proof that the Spirit provides Wisdom to the Pope on matters of Faith and Morals

FYI, it was Pope St. Pius X who instituted the elevation of the Blessed Sacrement during the Narrative.

May God grant you a Blessed Great Lent,

Brendan

Thanks for the explanation, Alex. The differences in how East & West view priests helped the most.

Logos Teen

The later western theology of the Eucharist is based upon the medieval scholastic theology, which is based upon Aristotle.

The Scholastics always postulated that any entity contains both form and substance. While the form may change (me, when I was 10; and me: now!) the substance, i.e., the "me-ness" remains the same.

In the case of the Eucharist, the western theology teaches (as does the East) that the bread and wine begin as both bread-form and wine-form, and bread-essence/substance and wine-essence/substance. Through the power of the Holy Spirit and the prayerful action of the baptized priest and people, the forms of bread and wine remain the same (outward signs) but their substance/essence is changed.

Thus, we see bread and wine; but the substance changes into the Body and Blood of Christ.

No problem. (LOVE that medieval scholasticism! Everything is SOOOO neat.)

The question of "when this happens" is really kind of silly because it postulates that the human-present Essence of God comes and goes in time. It's only us humans who are subject to the strictures of time. We must remember that God is Alpha and Omega, without-beginning and without-end.

Personally, I am most comfortable with the belief that the "trans-substantiation" occurs during the Anaphora; but the real completion of the act becomes present in the eating and drinking of the Eucharist -- because THAT is the core purpose of celebrating Eucharist, the very reason why the Lord told us to "do this (eat .... drink) in commemoration of Me."

St. Pius X was right on target when he encouraged the faithful to partake of communion frequently and abandon the practice of avoiding communion lest we profane it by being unworthy or unclean. (Let's face it: we're never either worthy or clean enough.)

Blessings!

Dear All,

What Dr. John has just posted is what I've learned throughtout my studies in the Western Church. The working of the priest, alone, as some sort of magician is not the cause of the presence of Jesus. It is the action of the Spirit acting through his Church, the laos and priest, an alter Christus, who confects the Eucharist.

A careful reading of the Eucharistic Prayers in the Mass celebrated according to the New Order and the Mass celebrated using the Tridentine Eucharistic Prayer reflects what Dr. John pointed out.

As I understand it, in our Church, the priest is not priest because he is Roger. He is called priest because he shares in the priesthood of Christ. As a result of his participation in the priesthood of Christ, he is empowered to invoke the power of the Spirit in making our gifts holy and recites the narrative. We as Christ's Body, priest and people offer the gifts to the Father. In turn, the Spirit renews our creation as Church and empowers us to be His presence to do His work in the world.

At least this is what I learned. Really examining ancillary issues like clericalism would lead to a complex explanation for their origin and development in all of our churches.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear friends,

I have to agree with Alex on this one. This is the classic Lutheran position, that after the consecration the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine albeit "bearing" the Body and Blood of Christ.

Although the scholastic term "transubstantiation" is one that many Eastern Christians would not be comfortable with it is my understanding that the Eastern view also holds that even though our bodily senses see and taste bread and wine, they have been truly and really changed into the sacramental presence of Christ.

Khrystyna