www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Bread or Body?

Hello,

After talking with some Orthodox friends after Divine Liturgy today, we talked about Eucharist.

They said that the Orthodox believe that Eucharist is BOTH Bread and Body of Jesus (Consubstantiation concept, like Martin Luther), in other words, they don't believe in the concept of "Transubstantiation" when the Bread becomes Body of Jesus (bread no longer co-exist, is vanished, va-room!)like Roman Catholics do.

What is the Byzantine CATHOLIC position (belief) on this? Any comments? Thank you.

spdundas

Strictly speaking, consubstantiation is not the Orthodox position. But I am not theologically astute enough to say whether it is an acceptable "definition." I would say that the Orthodox teaching is clear as far as it's postive content, that the Holy Bread is indeed the true Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ and that discussions of species and other Aristotelian or other philosophical concepts fall under the category of "speculation."

I look forward to seeing how Byzantine Catholics view transubstantiation.

Bill Mo,

What do you mean by "speculation?" Aristotlian philosophy is Western? Thanks.

spdundas

By "speculation" I mean something that can neither be proven or disproven. I wasn't making any judgement on Aristotelian, Platonic, etc., etc. philosophical systems.

The witness of Scripture tells us that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Scripture doesn't tell us about how we correlate that to what our senses perceive as bread and wine. So if you think transubstantiation is the best explanation, there's no danger in it. Basically if it doesn't contradict Scripture, it might well be true.

As I understand it, neither the Orthodox nor the Eastern Catholics define the process (transubstantiation is a definition of process with consequent statements about results). The Eastern process has been to state that the Real Presence is all that is significant. To ascribe either transubstantiation or consubstantiation to the process is Western theology and not Eastern. This is not to say that both are wrong, it's to say that in the East the Anaphora effects a change in the bread and wine causing Jesus to be really present.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear in Christ,

God Bless you! I will agree with Father Deacon Ed in his statements on htis matter, but I would also lile to add something which is taught in the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and would be surprised if it differed at all with the belief of the Eastern Catholic Church.

The Elements of Bread and Wine are "Changed" into the Body and Blood of Christ. This sanctification of the Elements is called "Change", "Transelementation" and depends mainly on the meaning of the words of Scripture: "This is my body". and "this is my blood". These words of Christ do not mean "my body" is present in the Bread and "my blood" is present in the Wine. In reality the Elements of Bread and Wine become in substance the very Body and very Blood of Christ. These words of Christ signify the actual "change" of the Elements rather than the co-existence of visible and invisible parts.The Chursh also confesses the very presence of the Body and Blood of Christ as a result of the "change" of the Elements. Efforts to explain this change by rational means in order to ease human understanding are fruitless, since this change is made by the "creative almightiness" of God, and so is incomprehensible to man.
In the Liturgy it is my the Action of God Throught His Holy Spirit that this Change is accomplished:

..we ask , we pray, we supplicate:
send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these Gifts here set forth,
and make this bread the Precious Body
of Thy Christ, and that which is in
the Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy
Christ, CHANGING them by the Holy
Spirit.

There is also the teaching of the Fathers that Liturgy is a suspension of time and space and therefore it is "always" the same action in the Holy Eucharust as that of Its Institution by Christ on Holy and Great Thursday. This is a Mystical Reality which cannot be measured or explained either.

I always deeply enjoy discussions about the Holy Eucharist, It being the Center of our Life and Worship. It is always good to learn of It .

unworthy servant

+Kyrill

Hello,

Oh boy, I'm so stupid. Father Kyrill's explanation went just a tad bit over my head.

I did not mean to discuss the "process." My whole question was: AFTER the "process" or "changing," then WHAT is It? Is it Body alone? Or does it co-exist with bread (as in both bread and Body)? Of course "appearance" or "accidents" of the bread remain. It's a question of what It (or it) really is after the "changing" or "process."

Thank you. Sorry I wasn't clear with my questions earlier on in this post. I guess the discussion of "processing" Theology (transub. & consub.) got in the way of knowing what the "end result of It is." It seems related, but I guess it's a total different topic.

spdundas

Leonid Ouspensky put the whole question into proper focus for the Byzantine Church: "Christ is not shown in the Holy Gifts. He is given. He is shown in the icons. The visible side of the reality of the Eucharist is an image which can never be replaced either by imagination or by looking at the Holy Gifts." For us Byzantines, the Eucharist is primarily super-substantial Food and Drink. From an article entitled "The Problem of the Iconostasis" in in St. Vladimir's Quarterly, 1964, No. 4, 215 as quoted in Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology" (page 204).

Eastern Christians shy away from such terms as "transubstantiation" not because they are not correct, because they are not correct enough. No earthly words can completely explain this Mystery. Is the Eucharist truly the Body and Blood of Christ? Yes.

Saint John of Damascus says,

"If you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit...we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable."

Spdundas asks a great question.

Fact is, if (GOD FORBID!) one was to take the consecrated Species into a laboratory and do chemical analysis, the analysis would show bread and wine. Laboratory equipment has no setting for detecting the real presence of divinity. Neither do our taste buds. But the nature of these things which look, smell, taste and behave like bread and wine has been changed.

If you go by the evidence of your senses, and by objective analysis, "bread" and "wine"
remain present. If you go by the promise of Christ, we have His Body and Blood - and the appearance doesn't really matter.

Cheers,


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Dear SPUNDAS:

To make a simple answer to your question: what is left after the Anaphora, after the consecration if you will, is the Body and Blood of Jesus. There is no bread, there is no wine, there is only Jesus. The sensate properties are that of bread and wine.

This differs from Jesus' presence when he walked among us as a man in that Jesus took on our human nature while retaining his divine nature. In the Eucharist the nature of bread and wine is not assumed but replaced by the divine nature.

When Jesus walked on earth we perceived him as a man. In the Eucharist we perceive him as bread and wine -- and both perceptions are dim realities of the truth that lies within.

Fr. Deacon Edward

I think the answer might be that since the Catholic Church in dialogue with both the Lutheran Confession and the Anglican Communion has agreed that the terms are not useful in identifing differences in respective views of the Eucharist, it certainly would not be something that creates any difficultly among Catholics or in Catholic-Orthodox relations.

K.

I'm afraid that there is a mistaken notion out there that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. True, Aristotelian (read Greek philosophical) language is used to clarify what Catholics believe about the change that takes place. Nevertheless, the change remains a mystery. Indeed, Roman Catholics refer to it as the "mysterium fidei." What the doctrine states is that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the substance of our Lord Jesus Christ while the accidents or "appearances" remain those of bread and wine. One does not need to hold to Aristotelian philosophy to accept what the Church is teaching here. "Substance" merely means "what a thing is." "Accidents" refer to that which inheres in a thing, that is, everything that can be perceived by the senses (size, extent, weight, shape, colour, taste, smell, etc..) So, the teaching of Transubstantiation merely states that after the Consecration, that which was bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. At the same time, it teaches that this change is not subject to scientific investigation which would simply reveal what the senses tell us, i.e., bread and wine. Hence, on the word of our Lord we believe that what appears to be bread and wine is really not such but rather His Adorable Body and Blood given for our salvation.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation rules out the Lutheran notion of Consubstantiation which says that Christ is present along with the bread and wine. This would imply that no transformation of the gifts has taken place but rather that an addition has occurred, i.e., the addition of Christ's presence. I would venture to say that this is also contrary to Orthodox teaching which has used words such as "metaousias" ("changing of the essence or substance) to describe what happens.

Ed

Edward D.V.:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I agree with your post. I was raised Roman Catholic and studied R.C. doctrine heavily, and have never had the impression that the term transubstantiation was a description of how the bread and wine are changed. It merely tells us that by the power of God the elements of bread and wine are changed into the true Body and Blood of the Risen Christ.

I am new to this message board and to Eastern Christianity. My background is protestant, but I've been exploring the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths for the past several months. My preference is for Orthodoxy, but due to location, I now regularly attend a RCC in the area.

My question is this: If the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but we cannot perceive it with our physical senses, does that not make it a spiritual change, rather than a physical change? I believe Jesus is physically present, but I know those who say He is only spiritually present, not physically so. This is what they use to make their point. Your comments will be appreciated.

LoriB



[This message has been edited by LoriB (edited 03-28-2000).]