www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why not "Open Communion"?

Good article.

And was picked up by the Greeks and Slavs in the face of Protestant eucharistic teaching that began to creep into Orthodox teaching, which is why one finds it in liturgical books in Orthodoxy.

I don't mind not spending much time on the idea of "transubstantiation" but I am truly perplexed by Orthodox clergy who say that the bread and wine and the body and blood are there in the Eucharist together, and that Orthodoxy does not separate them out like Catholics do. At that point I think Orthodoxy would be better off repeating the lessons of transubstantiation, even if the word is not used at all.

M.

Mary,

Agreed.

My issue is when some Latins seem to insist upon reducing the Eucharistic Mystery in their proclamation of it to the Last Supper, the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. It would be like reducing the proclamation concerning the Mystery of Christ to homoousios. Often what may be essential is not always sufficient unto itself when proclaiming the Gospel!

A far better approach is exemplified by the likes of Pere Jean Danielou and his classic work, "The Bible and the Liturgy", which synthesizes much of the Patristic view. Let's approach the Mystery principally as a sign, without denying any of the rest.

Gordo

The word "homoousios" is used by the Fathers in an apophatic sense, i.e., the Fathers did not see that word as describing what God is, or how the eternal Logos is divine.

Nor did the Latins attempt to define what the Eucharistic mystery was (beyond what was already affirmed by Holy Tradition) any more than the Nicene Fathers defined who Christ was or how the change in the Eucharist occurs any more than the Nicene Fathers defined how God became man. No attempt was made to notionally capture the total essence of the mystery, only to defend the doctrine against heresy while still asserting something true.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I would personnally favor this, along with an explicit belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper.

Fr. Breck's point is that there is a change in the eucharistic elements, but that there is no need, nor is it in fact really possible, to describe the nature of the change. The mystery is ineffable, and -- as a consequence -- it is beyond the capacity of Aristotelian metaphysics, and of created human reason in general, to describe it.

As far as the incarnation is concerned, the Chalcedonian horos is just as apophatic as the Nicene use of the term homoousios.

I will agree insofar as any human terminology or philosophical system is limited and can neither describe nor contain the essence of the Mystery - Christological or Eucharistic.

But given the context of the quote, Father Breck's intent is to set up a false dichotomy with the West, implying somehow that the Latins compromised the purity of Eucharistic doctrine, which remains untainted by the Orthodox East, by defending it with the term, transubstantiation. I don't buy it anymore than I buy the notion that the Nicene Fathers did the same to Christology by defining homoousios.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Dear Father Anthony,

I did not state anything contrary to the teachings of the Church. I merely expressed my opinion as to why the people receiving communion are not fully aware as to the teachings of the Church in reference to holy Communion, and how those teachings towards Communion differentiates from the other Christian faiths? And if the Orthodox people are not fully aware as to the teaching when receiving the Eucharist, then how can that teaching, and the intellectualizing thereof, make any difference to them?

In that sense, would the Orthodox be any different than those of another faith receiving communion in the Orthodox Church, since in either case, neither one is aware of what they are recieving and how it differentiates from the others?

Mind you, I accept fully the teachings of our faith, and fully believe that our teachings are the most accurate. (I'm Orthodox. I like them better :)). I do realize though, that the concepts formed by either Catholic or Orthodox, (and in this sense I exclude the Protestants, because so many of their leaders formed their beliefs through an 'oppositional' theology towards the Catholics), were probably formed because of cultural differences. We are different you know! East is East and West is West...as the song goes!

Not mind you, that the cultural differences makes us less correct. (See, I'm not a heretic). I am in complete conformity as to the teachings of our Church, even to go so far as to say that I have yet to find any of my beliefs contrary to those of Bishop Kallistos Ware.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Even Father John notes that the term is used in Orthodox liturgical books, and it has clearly been my experience that for every Orthodox priest who insists that Orthodoxy does not teach 'real presence' as it is understood by transubstantiation, there is another one who says that Orthodoxy does.

I was a little more concerned with what seemed to be a comparison that says that Orthodoxy teaches that the real presence is the real presence of the risen and ascended Christ, while that is not so for Catholics, though he does not say so outright.

As a matter of record, the same teaching pertains in the Catholic Church.

The only real eucharistic reason that we are not in communion is that we are not in communion. That part of the article certainly is true.

Mary

Dear Lance,

I believe that all Christians should unite and accept and agree on what is important among the teachings of the Church. Minor differences will always exist...after all we are different.

Christ's Church should be unified, so that all the gifts given to each of us, (because of our differences), can be utilized for our Lord's Glory and the saving of souls. Nothing else can be of any importance.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Can you please give me the specific information about this book. I would like to read it.

I do not believe that Fr. Breck is setting up a "false dichotomy": instead, I think he is simply stating the Orthodox doctrinal position on this issue.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - There is absolutely no reason why an Eastern Christian should have to adopt Western theological speculations.

The Scholastic theory of "transubstantiation" is an attempt to penetrate the mystery of the eucharist by describing what happens to the bread and wine, while also defining the exact nature of Christ's presence in the elements. That said, as an Eastern Christian I see this as unnecessary.