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

Well, we all know what happens to the bread and wine: by the power of the Holy Spirit, they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. How, exactly, that happens, is a mystery beyond our capacity to know. I, for one, see the real value of the idea of transubstantiation as apologetic, more than anything else. For me, it is good enough that Holy Scripture and the Church teach that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. But what do I say to the one who protests that the elements are clearly bread and wine? They look and taste like bread and wine. If one were to take the consecrated elements and analyze them in a lab, the results would show them to be bread and wine. Consumption results in an increase in blood sugar and production of insulin. Consumption of enough of the consecrated wine will produce drunkenness. How can you say that they are no longer bread and wine? Here is the point at which I see the value of transubstantiation. The mere appearance of the consecrated elements, their chemical structure, their ability to produce increased blood sugar, production of insulin, a state of drunkennes, and the like, are all mere accidents. But in substance, or essence-which I think is a more helpful term as it avoids the modern associations of substance with the discipline of chemistry-the consecrated elements are most certainly not bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ. To me, regardless of the intentions of any particular theologian, this need not amount to an effort to penetrate the mystery, because it ultimately does not, and cannot, answer the question of how it is that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. As I said above, the Holy Spirit effects the change by means that are beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend. Furthermore, I would also suggest that transubstantation ultimately does not answer the question of "the exact nature of Christ's presence in the elements." In my opinion, as is the case with the question of how the elements are changed, we can only say that Christ is present in the elements through the power of the Holy Spirit. The exact nature of that presence is unknowable to us. Having said all of this, I don't really see transubstantiation as being "necessary" either. What I think is necessary to having a Eucharistic theology that accords with Apostolic Christianity is the acceptance of the Church's teaching that the consecrated elements are not bread and wine, but are the true body and blood of the risen Christ. But I still can see the apologetic value of transubstantiation, especially in response both to the Eucharistic heresies in medieval western Europe and to the various teachings that arose in the Protestant Reformation.

Ryan

I think it was a very good article. Thank you for posting it.

I don't think it was polemical towards Catholics or Protestants or their theologies. Instead, I think the article stated the Orthodox position on the matter, and it distinguished it from the Catholic and Protestant positions.

I think open communion is a bad idea. It applies a unity of belief, practice and membership that just doesn't exist. Put another way, open communion implies that unity in beliefs and practices, faith and morals, doesn't really matter. Look how well that has worked in the Episcopalian Church. I think prayer services and the daily conduct of our lives are appropriate areas for ecumenism, not the Eucharist unless real unity in beliefs and practices exists.

Just my two cents.

-- John

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this, Todd. I believe his intent with his treatment of this question is to contrast the approaches, but, with all due respect to Father Breck - and I do very much respect his writings in general - he is setting up a false dichotomy by mischaracterizing the approach of the Latin West vis-a-vis the Eucharist. I am not ascribing ill motive on his part, but it is the effect of what he is saying.

With the doctrine of transubstantiation the Latin West is engaging in "theological speculation"? No - I would say responding to a pastoral need brought about by heretical speculation. Much like Nicea. And, as Mary pointed out, when faced with the encroachments of Calvin's heresies, many within the Orthodox East saw in this term a helpful pastoral way to combat certain aspects of his heretical teachings on the Eucharist.

And there is no substantive theological reason why an Eastern Christian could not accept this doctrine, so long as it is treated as having limited value vis-a-vis the whole theology of the Eucharistic Mystery.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Ryan,

I agree with everything you have said here.

Acknowledge its limited apologetic value, and, as Mary said, just don't sit around at Mass waiting for transubstantiation to occur. (One of her more memorable lines...)

In ICXC,

Gordo

Sed contra...

No more than Nicea.

Gordo

Unfortunately Father John Breck - whom I also respect - has in this article given an inaccurate impression of both Orthodox teaching and Catholic teaching.

a) does the Orthodox Church teach transubstantiaton? Well, yes, she does. References include, and are not limited to, various Eastern Orthodox "symbolic texts", such as the decrees of the Synod of Bethlehem-Jerusalem (1672, the Confession of Dositheus, the Confession of St. Peter Mohyla of Kyiv, the Catechism of Philaret of Moscow, and many others.

Philologists may be interested to note that Greek uses the term metousiosis, and Church-Slavonic or Russian the term presushchestvlenie. Each of these is a calque of the Latin term transubstantiation.

More to the point, neither Catholics nor Orthodox are bound to the philosophical distinction between substance and accidents.

b) are Orthodox welcome to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches? Unequivocally, yes. While this was restated at Vatican II, it was not and is not any new teaching nor any new practice. It is true that one finds some Catholic "ecumenists" who would like the Church to refuse to communicate Eastern Orthodox Christians because the Eastern Orthodox Church would as a rule prefer that her faithful not receive Holy Communion from Catholics. But the preference of these Catholic "ecumenists" does not bind Catholic practice - nor are Catholic hierarchs and priests bound to enforce someone else's rules. By the same token, the Catholic Church certainly prefers that Catholics should not receive communion from Anglicans, Lutherans, or other Protestants, but we have no possible right to demand that those ecclesial communities should refuse Catholics who approach them - all we can do is instruct our own faithful and hope that our faithful will act accordingly.

Fr. Serge

Ryan,

I'm not so sure that the apostolic teaching is that there is no longer (in any sense) bread and wine. If you look at the fathers, you can find all kinds of statements that suggest something like the Lutheran view, that the Body and Blood of Christ is given through the bread and wine. But they still regard it as sacred Bread and Wine. Isn't speculating about what remains of the bread and wine also saying too much? All theories are going to be inadquate and none are explicitly revealed by Scripture or the Fathers. We believe that, in reality, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. But, I don't see why we have to make any statements about whether the bread and wine are annihilated in their substance. That would be to try to penetrate too far.

Joe

I found father Breck's article to be fair, not necessarily generous, but fair. when I attend a Liturgy at a canonical Orthodox church, I know full and well that the Priest cannot administer the Mysteries to me, nor would I commit something bordering on sacrilege by saying that I am canonical Orthodox in order to receive the Mysteries. I am content to attend the Liturgy and partake of the Antidoron. in all fairness, Rome (regardless of "Rite") practices what is know in the South as closed communion. despite that fact, I have seen Protestants just march on up there and receive the Mysteries, and yes, I should say something about it. I would like to extend the benefit of a doubt that the Priest hasn't a clue. at the same time, perhaps those Protestants have come around to the Real Presence, and while that is not the answer, it is my prayer for the best of situations.
what Rome and Constantinople need to do is sit down and sort all of this out. there are other issues as recognition of Baptism and Chrismation that are attendant on whether I can receive the Mysteries in a canonical Orthodox church in the light that there are no EC churches in Chattanooga. until the Pope and Patriarch are on the same page, I will receive the Mysteries in a Latin church, which is my sacred privilege (I did not say right, I know better than presume such a thing).
Much Love,
Jonn

Joe,

The way I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation filled a void that came about in the West as a result of the condemnation of Berengar of Tours in 1059. He was condemned for teaching that the changing of the Eucharistic gifts took place �mystice, non realiter,� but the Lateran council that condemned hime then went on to adopt the contrary formula, �realiter, non mystice.� By declaring the transformation not to be mystical, they brought about a need for an alternate explanation.

Furthermore, the transformation of the bread and wine is a symbol (in the true, ancient sense of 'symbol,' which is equivalent to 'sacrament,' meaning a manifestation of something hidden) of our transformation into the Body of Christ. Pope Pius XII used the term 'mystical' to refer to the latter transformation only, but not only is the former transformation by any means less mystical, it is also necessary that the two transformations occur in much the same way in order for the one to be truly symbolic of the other.

More recently, Pope Benedict has used the term mystical in conjunction with transubstantiation. As long as the two can be seen as complimentary, we can surely accept both.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Father Deacon Richard,

I actually don't have a problem with transubstantiation as one explanation, as long as it is not looked upon as the defining explanation. I should read more closely what Berengar of Tours meant by "mystically." If he meant something like what Calvinists mean, that Christ is present in the heart, though not really in the elements, then I could see the need to oppose his view with some concrete statement. And if transubstantiation simply means that the bread and wine Truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, not just metaphorically, then I would say that I believe in transubstantiation. What I don't think is essential is the use of scholastic terminology to explain transubstantiation; and in my mind, there isn't really a substantial difference between what Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans believe about the real presence, except that Lutherans believe that the change is only temporal (after the liturgy, the unconsummed elements return to being just elements). Of course, we Catholics and Orthodox must reject that aspect of the Lutheran view.

Joe

Actually it is not an attempt to penetrate the mystery.

It is the means by which one distinguishes the "real presence" expressed in heterodox terms and the "real presence" expressed in orthodox terms.

Transubstantiation tells us what...not how.

Mary

Dear John,

With respect, I think Father John offered, in particular instances, a false distinction between Orthodox and Catholic teaching.

Mary

Fr. Breck has not given an "inaccurate impression" at all, since he stated in his own article that the term "transubstantiation" has been used by Orthodox in the past. The point is that the term "transubstantiation" -- and even the Greek words that are similar to it -- does not have the status of a dogmatic horos in Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, none of the terms mentioned in this thread are found within the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which merely addresses the sacrificial aspect of the Divine Liturgy, and not the change that takes place in the elements.

In other words, the various terms (whether Latin or Greek) used in Eastern Orthodoxy in connection with the change of the elements are merely theologoumenon, while -- on the other hand -- in the Roman Church the word "transubstantiation" is held to be a dogmatic expression, which attempts to describe the nature of the mystery in rationalistic manner.

The term "transubstantiation" says too much, and is sadly founded upon the metaphysics of Aristotle, which no Christian is required to accept.

I, as an Eastern Christian, hold that it is not possible to know the essence of things, but only their energies, which reveal -- to the degree that this is possible -- the nature of the thing in question.

Todd,

I don't disagree with you. For me, that is the problem with transubstantiation, that it is held in the west as Dogma and not as a theologoumenon. But, I can understand how, in a certain context, that particular way of expressing the real presence became a dogmatic definition. It is so easy to equivocate on all of these words, "real," "symbolic", and "mystical." This is why I pointed out that there are Calvinists who talk about Christ being mystically, or spiritually present, but they mean something very different from what Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans believe.

Joe