On the road ETWN had a program about our protestant brothers and this subject. I know the Catholic belief but was wondering about the not in communion with the Catholic (Rome) church. I do not know if any of you know the answers, but I would assume that all of the orthodox churches have this as a matter of faith. It is only the later schisms that produced this aberation of faith. I find solace that the 'eastern rite' churches are still associated with us in one holy church. I am a convert (30 years ago) with a fundementalist Baptist backgroud although I was never really involved deeply in that church.

The Orthodox Church does not define "when" the change takes place in the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Western Scholastic way but does proclaim that the Change happens as in the LIturgy "making the Change by Thy Holy Spirit" at the Epiclesis.

Just to add a little, Transubstanionation is not to objectionable to most orthodox.

__________________________________
clipped from monachos.net

St. Hilary said that the reality of this experience is realized through both the 'declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith.' (On the Trinity) Does our confession of Faith materialize the presence of the Lord? No, neither does the mere reciting of the words of the Lord. Yet, without both of these, we do not receive that which is the body and blood of Christ.

Our worship is the Divine Liturgy of the Eucharistic offering of Christ Himself to his Father and to us. It is Christ who makes himself present not the Priest. This latter point is also one of the subtle difference between Orthodox Eucharistic Theology and Roman Catholic doctrine. The Roman Catholic doctine extends to the Priest power to "make" Christ present. The Roman Catholic Priest is the vehicle of Change in its Eucharistic doctrine.

In Orthodoxy the body of the Church already is the body of Christ and the body of Christ is the body of the Christ's Church. There is no change, there is however a tranformation, a divine revelation of the mystery of Christ who is one person with two natures. It is Christ who has given to the Church His Body and Blood, it is the Church who possesses it and celebrates that giving and in that celebration receives from Christ that which Christ has given.

Even before the bread has been received by the priest, there are already prayers being said by those who prepared it for the Holy Sacrifice. Even before the Eucharistic offering, there are prayers which are said which seperate the loaf (loaves)for the sacrifice.

Even the bread, from which a sacrifice is taken, and which remains is still Holy and received after fasting and prayers. We do not identify this as the body of Christ but as having a share in that body which is Christ.

For Orthodox Christians, there is no moment of change but rather a moment of reception. From that prayer on we receive the bread which is Christ's body and the wine which is Christ's blood.

From then on, the question of "How" is properly asked, but it is not "How can this be?" but "How can I who am unworthy, receive that which is wholly Holy and remain unharmed in my body?" We do speak of change from that moment of reception, asking, "How can I receive and not be changed?

Thus, for the Orthodox Christian, the proper point theological to ask about change is after our reception and then addressing our change. There is also the confession that those who receive unworthily can and may suffer bodily harm. Owen made brief reference to this in his first post.

No doubt, I have failed miserably to explain the mystery and its place in the Church. I hope, however, I have written nothing offensive, for I did not mean to offend.

The term I know is "TRANSUBSTANTATION".

Actually I have a Greek Orthodox Catechism that teaches "the situation in which the bread and wine by the power of the Holy Spirit become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, is called TRANSUBSTANTATION."

In the ROCOR site in Spanish (Bishop Alexander's site) it is clearly defined that the Orthodox Church does not deny or condemn the doctrine of transubstantation, it just doesn't adhere to the intellectual views of St. Thomas Aquinas on this subject. On the other side Orthodoxy condemns those who deny that Christ in all his Divinity is present through in sacred species (the Protestants.)

Father Schmemann's book about the Eucharist exposes what is the difference between the approach of St. Thomas and the Patristic theology of the Eucharist (at the end you learn that there's no difference, it's just that the Latins are more complicated )

But if the Orthodox Churches state that the change takes place sometime during the Liturgy or more specifically sometime during the Epiklesis, isn't it defining "when" the change takes place, just not as specifically as the Catholic Church?

Logos Teen

Dear Logos Teen,

The term "transubstantiation" is not a specifically Orthodox term, and while it is indeed used by some Orthodox for the sake of convenience, it is rejected by others who prefer the simpler terms of "transmutation," "transformation," or "change." The Orthodox are not so interested as the Latins in the scientific "how" of the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and most prefer to leave the "how" (as defined in the Scholastic definition of "transubstantiation") to the realm of Mystery.

As to the exact moment of the change, most Orthodox would prefer to leave that in the realm of Mystery also, some saying at a time during the Divine Liturgy without specifying exactly when, others saying that if a definite moment in the Liturgy could be ascertained, it would certainly be at the conclusion of the Epiklesis and the triple "Amen's" which immediately follow it that we know by faith that the change has occurred (as Brian inferred).

OrthodoxEast

Dear Friends,

Yes, you will find a variation of belief on this subject among Eastern Catholics.

Those of us who are Orthodox-Catholics in communion with Rome see the Orthodox liturgical theology as our own in this respect.

The Western fascination with pinpointing an exact moment when the Transmutation occurs is something that was never shared in the East.

All Three Persons of the Trinity are involved in the Action, the Anamnesis, the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis - they are all integrally linked.

After the final "Amen" at the end of the Epiclesis, that closes the actual Canon, we know that there is no more bread and wine on the Altar, but the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ.

WHEN this happens - we can never know. We can only know this HAS HAPPENED following the Canon.

This also reflects the characteristic great focus on the entire Holy Trinity that the Eastern Church has as well as underlining the great role of the Holy Spirit in the Epiclesis.

We are also called to change our own selves into Christ through the constant Epiclesis of the Jesus Prayer.

Alex

Dear friends,

In the West it is believed that Jesus "held His body in His hands" at the Last Supper where He instituted the Eucharist. But the West grants that the phrases "this is my body" and "this is the cup of my blood" are sufficient, even without an explicit epiclesis.

Does the Orthodox Church teach that Jesus used an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit at the Last Supper? This would make sense.

in Christ,
Marshall

Yes, I know.

Alex, I don't understand this statement. If you know that is "HAS HAPPENDED following the Canon" and that it occurs sometime during the Liturgy, one has by definition knowledge of "WHEN this happens": sometime during the Liturgy, probably during the Epiklesis.

So it seems to me that the "when" has been explained and understood by both East and West, just more specifically by the West.

Logos Teen

No, the Eastern Orthodox don't believe in Transubstantiation.

There was a really good scrap back in the "Focus on Scripture" subforum, in the "icon of the trinity" thread, towards the end, say pages 6-9. Basically, some got upset to hear that the the Eastern Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) maintain that the bread and the wine "don't go away," but are present with His most precious body and blood.

It is an icon of the Incarnation. What one chooses to call this belief, I leave open, but it is definitely not transubstantiation.

A celebrant recently made an error while celebrating the Liturgy of John Chrysostom, he said "and show these gifts..." This is the wording from the Liturgy of Basil the Great, but I remind us of it here just to get folks started....

The related point that I would like participants to consider is this: Is God only present on earth when WE want Him to be and WE call Him to be?

With love in Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Reader Andrew,

I disagree with your view on the Orthodox understanding of the Transmutation of the bread and wine in Holy Communion - to me it smacks of Consubstantiation.

I disagree that this is Orthodoxy's official stance on the matter.

Please show us one authoritative source that would espouse what you have written on this subject.

Otherwise, have a nice day!

Alex

Dear Alex,

I'll have a nice day anyway.

I'll also check some sources and get back to you tomorrow.

In Christ,
Andrew.

That sounds a little bit Protestantized. Priests always tell me that the symbol does not contradict his real prersence in the Eucharist, but that his real presence is much mnore important. And the bread and wine do not remain within the sacred species, they tell me that's what the Lutherans belueve.

What I've always been told is that It is His Body and Blood, wholly, mysteriously, and not bread and wine. I think the objection to the doctrine of Transubstantiation is the detail it goes into about every neuron, cell, bone, etc, being present, while we just want to say, it's His Body and Blood, that's what He told us, and leave it at that. It also talks about how it becomes His Body and Blood, about the physical axioms remaining the same while the substance changes, while we prefer just to say, it's His Body and Blood, and leave it at that without worrying about more. Saying that the bread and wine is still present sounds like Protestant influence, and contradicts everything I've every been taught. I think sometimes some Orthodox go too far in distincing themselves from the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so that they accidentally fall into the heresy of Consubstantiation, or worse.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "transubstantiation" is not a specifically Orthodox term, and while it is indeed used by some Orthodox for the sake of convenience, it is rejected by others who prefer the simpler terms of "transmutation," "transformation," or "change."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I know.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN this happens - we can never know. We can only know this HAS HAPPENED following the Canon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex, I don't understand this statement. If you know that is "HAS HAPPENDED following the Canon" and that it occurs sometime during the Liturgy, one has by definition knowledge of "WHEN this happens": sometime during the Liturgy, probably during the Epiklesis.

So it seems to me that the "when" has been explained and understood by both East and West, just more specifically by the West.

Logos Teen

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

Christine<<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.>>

When I receive the Holy Gifts in Divine Communion, Khrystyna, I have no doubts whatsoever that I am receiving the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, althought the Symbols of food, i.e., bread and wine, remain simultaneously.

OrthodoxEast

Of course you are!

But there is even a bit of a different slant on the way a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian would perceive the meaning of "symbols." Consubstantiation in the Lutheran view means that the Real Presence only remains during the celebration of Holy Communion -- for a Catholic Christian once the "change" has taken place, it is permanent.

Dear Khrystyna and OrthodoxEast,

Yes, permanent as long as the "accidents" of bread and wine are kept intact.

There are, as you know, a number of Eucharistic Miracles where the Hosts do not decay . . .

St Peter Mohyla writing in the 17th century provided guidelines for Orthodox priests in this respect.

There were and still occur many Eucharistic miracles where the bread and wine take on either the form of Human flesh and blood or else assume the form of a small child in the chalice itself.

Peter taught that such should be put aside and covered by the Priest to be reexamined later to see if the miracle had resumed its normal appearance - since otherwise what is on the altar is NOT Holy Communion.

If not, then the Priest is to take fresh bread and wine and recite the Eucharistic Canon once more.

The Lutherans also allowed their members to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation and held this and Consubstantiation as being equally "orthodox."

I think theologians today see in the Lutheran Consubstantiation an attempt to try and go beyond the restrictions of pagan Greek philosophic categories on which transubstantiation was established ("Accidents" vs. "Substance").

Consubstantiation ultimately holds that "if it looks like bread, and tastes like bread, it must be bread."

Of course, the danger with this is always a kind of "Eucharistic Nestorianism" where the bread and wine subsist together with the Body and Blood of Christ . . . And that would be intolerable heresy from the Orthodox-Catholic point of view.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Yes, Pope St Pius X was most perspicacious, and especially with respect to the East!

When the Russian Catholic Church was formed under Met. Andrew Sheptytsky, the Russians asked that they not be expected to adopt Latin liturgical celebrations such as Corpus Christi, the Sacred Heart etc.

St Pius X allowed them to substitute the office for the "Sweetest Lord Jesus" instead.

Sheptytsky also applied to have the Russian Orthodox saints approved for veneration by the Russian Catholics - and Pius X granted this as well.

And when Sheptytsky told St Pius about the rights of the Ukrainian Catholic Church - St Pius simply said, "Then make use of your rights!"

A very forward-looking, ecumenical and practical Pope, with a great love for prayer, Holy Communion and assisting the poor.

Why the SSPX chose him as their patron is beyond me . . .

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

Actually, I thank you because your probing questions helped me better understand this issue, especially in relation to the way both East and West understand the Priesthood.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Your point regarding the "accidents" is well taken. As far as Lutheran belief in transubstantiation, I would not be surprised to find that in the more "high church" Lutheran parishes but I very rarely encountered it in my Lutheran youth. Consubstantiation was more widely preferred in the more evangelical Lutheran parishes I knew. But of course this was during an era when there was still a firm Lutheran allergy to anything too "Roman". Since the liturgical movement there has been much stronger convergence in Lutheran/Catholic thinking, thanks be to God.

Khrystyna

And, not forgetting to add, as Lutherans have continued to recover their liturgical heritage they have discovered their strong connection to the Christian East in their common devotion to the Resurrection and the "mystery" of the Sacrament of the Altar.

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

Yes indeed!

I came across a Lutheran who had studied forms of making the Sign of the Cross etc.

I've spoken with High Church Lutheran pastors previously - and I must confess I failed to see where they differed from most Catholic and Orthodox doctrines and praxis.

And why the Swedish/Finnish Lutherans aren't with Rome now is beyond me . . .

One of the better books on Mary is by a Lutheran Pastor (A Protestant Pastor looks at Mary) and he urges a return to the recitation of the Rosary!

Hmmm . . . Dominican or Briggittine, do you think?

Alex

Dearest Alex and Khrystyna,

lacking a Catholic pre-school in our area, my wife and I send our 4 year old to a Lutheran Preschool.

One day, the teacher took us asided and said my son, at prayer time, recited the 'Ave Maria'. She was a bit agitated by this.

Thinking it was because our 4 year old happens to know his prayers in Latin , I mentioned that we say a chaplet of them every night.

That wasn't the issue. She objected to it doctrinally!!

Of course, as I recited the 'Hail Mary' in English, she could not say what was objectionable about it.
Her general comment was 'We just don't do that!'

I also commented that since the chance of any of the other children spoke Latin was miniscule, there was little danger of 'doctrinal corruption' to her other charges. :rolleyes:

Khrystyna , the ECLA is pretty Catholic friendly, but in the other synods , there is STILL an allergy to things Catholic. Which is interesting, because they are generally the 'High Church' Lutherans, and have more in common with us than ECLA.

What a world we live in.

Yours in Christ,

-Brendan

Dear Alex and Brendan,

It is my one of my dearest hopes that the Lutheran family of Christians will one day achieve a degree of unity that will enable them to seek greater unity with all of Christ's catholic Church.

Brendan, is your son attending a Missouri Synod Lutheran school? I was raised in the Missouri Synod and at that time it was still very "catholic" in its beliefs and liturgy. From what I understand now some Missouri Lutherans are becoming almost evangelical fundamentalists. It makes me very sad to hear of your son's experience. The teacher was out of line. One reason I was able to joyfully and quickly embrace the Rosary is because I was raised with a firm belief in the Communion of Saints and the frequent recitation of the Apostles Creed. Having already been accustomed to praying the Creed, the Our Father and the Glory Be it was a small and welcome step to take in adding the Hail Mary.

I would agree with you that liturgically the ELCA is more "catholic" but unfortunately with the ordination of women and some very liberal positions on abortion, etc. a big stumbling block has been created to reunion with both Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. Those impediments also exist with the Swedish/Finnish Lutherans (the Swedes, I believe, have now ordained a women bishop who in turn was reported to have performed a same-sex marriage) who, as Alex rightly pointed out, are very high church and catholic in belief and practice.

My mom, a very proud and devoted Lutheran, was raised in a more pietistic environment and was scandalized when U.S. Lutherans began to move toward a recovery of weekly Communion and the move from the plain "scholar's robe" of the clergy to historical vestments. But she always expressed a grudging envy for the May crownings her Catholic friends took her to in childhood!

Much remains to be done.

Alex, I admire the Dominicans but I'll go for the Brigittines!

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna and Scotus,

I once tried to convince a Lutheran that the Rosary was fine since Martin Luther said it all his life, had an image of Mary in his room, and even believed in the Immaculate Conception!

But to no avail . . .

There is a "Lutheran Orthodox" independent group that has married certain aspects of Lutheranism with Orthodox-Catholic faith and practice and call themselves the "Evangelical Catholic Church," but many High Church Anglicans and Lutherans have also called themselves this.

Certainly, we may only really look to European Continental Lutherans for such Catholic devotional expressions.

But the Lutherans who have engaged in ecumenical discussions with the RC Church have posited a vision of future church union where the Lutherans would have a Patriarchate and their own Rite within the family of Catholic Rites!

Of course, the Apostle of the North, St Anskar of Hamburg, was the originator of the idea of a Northern Patriarchate based in Hamburg. Norway did develop its own Catholic liturgical tradition, the Rite of Trondheim, which was also practiced in some of the Channel Islands at one time.

But Catholic theologs basically see historic and classical (rather than later) Lutheranism as an expression of a northern European liturgical Rite.

St Clement Hofbauer of the Redemptorists spent his life missionizing among the Protestants of Germany.

He was to have said, "The Germans became Protestants because they wanted to live as Christians."

And the Church canonized him nevertheless . . .

Alex

Yes indeed! I was very happy when the Lutheran Book of Worship which came out in 1975 encouraged Lutherans to begin and end the day making the Sign of the Cross. Luther would have been proud! He truly was the least iconoclastic of the reformers and retained a truly sacramental spirituality.

One of the best books I've ever read on the subject is the great scholar Jaroslav Pelikan's "The Riddle of Roman Catholicism", written when he was still Lutheran. Professor Pelikan is, of course, now a member of the Orthodox family and I look forward to more great writings to come from him.

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

I guess that was a riddle Pelikan just couldn't figure out . . .

Alex

Oh sure Alex, go ahead and make me smile and ruin my properly dour Latin Lenten countenance!!!

Actually, I have to laugh a bit, one of Pelikan's musings in the book was that all the great Christian traditions should work within their own households toward reunion (and I obediently and enthusiastically nodded my head in agreement), so what did we both do? Converted to another tradition, of course! But never mind ... our baptism links us all irrevocably in Christ.

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

Well, I think you can still lay claim to being an "Evangelical Catholic" - which is the original name Lutherans were called by.

Martin Luther hated the fact that his followers were called after him - as if he, not Christ, was their saviour . . .

I've said this before, but I wrote an Akathist to Jan Hus who is, as you know, very much honoured by the Lutherans (and others).

A part of it is sung today in a few High Church German Lutheran parishes

Hus generated much interest among the Orthodox as well and in the 19th century, the Old Catholics formally asked the Orthodox Church if, upon union with it, they could continue to honour Hus and Jerome of Prague.

I've never actually read the Orthodox response to that - probably negative.

But since that time, it has been discovered that Jerome of Prague converted to Orthodoxy in Latvia and a copy of his Orthodox baptismal certificate has been found - igniting interest in the Czech Orthodox Church to canonize him.

Hus is simply honoured popularly as a martyr and that is that.

Following the Hussite Wars, an Englishman, John Payne, went to Bohemia and formally joined the Hussite Calixtine (High Church) group. He went to Constantinople where he converted to Orthodoxy and was consecrated an Orthodox bishop, Bp. "Constantine Anglikos" and returned to Bohemia where he ministered to Hussites who became Orthodox - and there were a few at that time.

The fact is that Czech Orthodoxy has always been attractive to Hussites and one Czech Orthodox priest once told me that he secretly wished the Orthodox Church could approve of the cult of Jan Hus - it would help him convert more Hussites to Orthodoxy!

Russian Orthodox theologians writing in the 19th century (and I once wrote an essay on this in university ) claimed Hus for their own and said he was in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition with his emphasis on the vernacular in the Liturgy and the Bible, married priesthood, Communion under both Kinds (the Chalice became a Hussite symbol).

Pan-Slavic poets, such as Taras Shevchenko, wrote about Hus and Shevchenko referred to him, in his poem on Shafarik, as:

"The Holy Czech
The Great Martyr
The Glorious Hus

...and I will pray that all Slavs may become as 'heretical' as that Great Heretic of Constance!"

Alex

Dearest Khrystyna,

Yes the school is LCMS. And I generally have no complaints at all with the school or what it teaches (at least on the preschool level )

It was this one issue where my son exceeded the teachers 'comfort zone' with Catholicism.

And of course, that was just the teacher. Her particular viewpoint cannot be taken as representitive of the school, parish or even the synod as a whole.

I must admit though, the whole incident made Daddy proud

BTW, here's a link to him saying his 'Ave'

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bnewell100460/sounds/KieranAve.mp3

Yours in Christ,

Brendan

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your most interesting exposition on Jan Hus. I was familiar with some of his history but not as widely as you have given in your post.

The spiritual links and chains born at the Reformation are fascinating. And yes, many Lutherans are most proud to call themselves Evangelical Catholics. There is a beautiful Lutheran Church in Pittsburgh that is as catholic as they come. One of the pastors, the Rev. Phillip Pfatteicher many years ago wrote a small manual of devotions for Holy Communion that drew from Orthodox, Anglican, Roman and Lutheran sources. It is a gem and I still use it to this day.

Khrystyna

Dear Scotus,

I just listened to your little guy's recitation of the Ave Maria. Precious!!

Khrystyna

Dear Brethren,

Our server has been down and up and so I've been unable to follow this discussion closely. I apologize. I did say that I would look at some modern references.

Certainly Fr. Schmemann's "The Eucharist" emphasizes Christ's presence throughout the liturgy. What he is really saying, if one reads him well, is that Christ doesn't come down to us, but that we go up to him/heaven. Perhaps, rather than thinking that the body and blood join with the bread and wine offered we should be understanding that the we are attempting to join the bread and wine to His already sacrificed body and blood. In other words, He is everywhere, and we are just trying to uncover or find him. (These are my own words/interpretation). This doesn't mean to imply that the Holy Spirit does not descend upon the gifts or that the people do not receive His true body and blood!

I think that Schmemann wanted us to get away from the idea of liturgy as something we do and then God shows up. He is trying to get us to think of liturgy as something going on in the kingdom, and we are trying to break into it and bring our small, childlike offering of bread and wine to the heavenly liturgy.

I find it to be most correct.

Further, Fr. Hopko's The Orthodox Faith, volume ii, Worship, when speaking of communion, speaks of the people receiving the consecrated bread and wine. Again, there is no veiled attempt to deny the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ, but perhaps, a subtle reminder that we encounter Him together with our simple material offering.

Perhaps, in other ways during our daily lives, icongraphically, for example, we uncover the Christ that is in our midst.

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Andrew,

Very interesting. The early Calvinists took that position but not in the sense that Fr. Schmemann means, I am sure. Since Scripture said that Christ, after His ascension was now seated at the right hand of the Father he could not possibly be "called down" from Heaven to be located on the altar. Of course, in His glorified state He can now be present anywhere at any time and is truly present everywhere.

Uniting our gifts and our humanity with His human/divine nature I am awed that Christ joins us to His own perfect sacrifice of praise, offered continually before His Father in the heavenly liturgy to which the Church on earth joins her worship.

Khrystyna

Greetings. I just discovered this thread. I started a thread on transubstantiation on the Faith and Worship area a few days ago, in case you haven't seen it.

Just a couple of thoughts in response to some of the thoughtful questions and arguments advanced above.

Regarding the question of the "moment" of transubstantiation. While the Western Church has definitely placed great emhasis on the words of institution, it has never (at least so I am told by one who knows these things) dogmatically defined this opinion. Most contemporary Catholic theologians and liturgists acknowledge the silliness of past debates with the East and typically steer away from identifying a specific moment of consecration. They understand that the verba is but one part of the entire prayer of consecration.

It is important to remember that for most of its history, the Latin canon of the Mass never contained an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine. Indeed, it's quite likely that the Eastern Eucharistic Prayers did not have such an explicit epiclesis until the 4th century.

One contributor raised the question of the elevations at the Words of Institution. This is my practice also, even though in the Episcopal rite an explicit epiclesis follows the words of institution. How do we justify this practice? This is how I have tentatively settled it in my mind:

The Holy Eucharist, in its entirety, is one prayer that is offered to the God who transcends our time. His "time" is not our time. Consequently, he does not experience our prayer in a sequential way. It's not as if he is waiting to hear the words of institution or the epiclesis before he answers our prayer to change the bread and wine. Moreover, the Divine Liturgy is itself an event within the eternal life of the Holy Trinity: It is offered to the Father, through Jesus Christ our great high priest, in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a participation in the eternal liturgy of heaven. The "temporal mechanics" of God's conversion of the oblations of bread and wine into the body and blood of the eternal Word must, therefore, always remain a mystery to us.

Within the liturgy of the Eucharist, which is one prayer of consecration, there are "moments," however, which explicitly identity the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ. It is therefore proper to understand these moments as events of consecration and to offer adoration to the Eucharistic Christ now present on our altars.

As I mentioned, the Latin Church has not had, at least since the 6th century, an epiclesis in the canon (and perhaps it never did); consequently, the words of institution have enjoyed an especial importance as a moment of consecration, especially since the 13th century. It is quite understandable, therefore, why the West eventually decided to ceremonialize the words of institution as an event of consecration and to offer adoration to Christ at that moment. Let us also remember that the introduction of the elevation of the consecrated elements for purpose of adoration occurred at a time (1) when the congregation was typically not receiving communion and (2) the devotional and spiritual needs of the laity were demanding outlets of expression. There was a profound desire to "see" the Eucharistic Christ: It was reported that in one church in England, in the late 13th or early 14th centuries, parishoners were heard to yell at the priest at the moment of elevation: "Hold up, Sir John. Heave it a little higher!"

If I may be so bold, Eastern Christians really should make greater effort to understand the Western experience of the Mass and the adoration of the Eucharistic Christ. A good place to begin would be In the Presence of Our Lord by Benedict J. Groeschel and James Monti. The East has never felt this particular need to "see" Christ in the Eucharist, as the visual element of devotion has been fulfilled in the veneration of icons.

The Western adoration of the Eucharistic elements at the words of institution need not deny the "consecratory function" of the epiclesis, just as the Eastern emphasis on the epiclesis need not deny the consecratory function of the institution narrative. It is important to also note that the consecratory power of the verba is implicitly acknowledged in the Eastern liturgy. The priest speaks aloud the words of Jesus and the congregation responds "Amen"! Centuries later polemics, of course, led Eastern theologians to deny what the liturgy in fact declares; but the fact remains that the Eucharistic Prayer of St. John Chrysostom, from very early on, declared the consecratory importance of the words of institution. This, of course, does not mean that the epiclesis does not also enjoy consecratory importance. Once again, we should not think in terms of either/or but both/and, for the Divine Liturgy is one unit of prayer.

(to be continued)

Alvin+

(Part II)

Regarding the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation: It is quite likely that Luther himself never taught such a doctrine. It is also quite likely that the Protestant Reformers, outside perhaps of Luther and some of his followers, never truly understood the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation. For whatever reasons, when the Reformers heard the word "substance" all they could think of was the physical reality of an object. But of course, "substance," as understood by scholasticism, is not a physical reality but a metaphysical reality.

Luther's concern was to simply and unequivocally affirm the identity of the consecrated elements with the body and blood of our Lord. If you were to have asked him, "After the consecration, what is the "bread and wine?" he would have replied "the body and blood of Christ." In fact, he understood this presence in such a realistic fashion that he applauded the first oath submitted to Berengar stated that in the Eucharist the faithful actually grinds Christ with their teeth. There are lots of problems with Luther's teaching here, but the real presence is not one of them. However, later Lutherans probably have taught what is traditionally called consubstantiation: Christ is present in, with, and under the elements, but the elements themselves are not the body and blood of Christ. The body and blood of Christ is given along with the bread and wine.

In my experience, Eastern theologians sometimes do sound like they are teaching something akin to consubstantiation. Consider, for example, this statement from an Orthodox seminary professor (in a private communication to me):

I know that a Catholic theologian would have serious reservations about this statement. If one says that the being of the bread has not in fact been changed, does that then mean that when we adore Christ in the Eucharist, as both East and Western Christians do, that we are committing idolatry because we are worshipping a creaturely reality? The Eucharistic change is not one where Christ assumes bread and wine into hypostatic union with himself (impanation). This is why Eucharistic transformation cannot analyzed through the Incarnation. Rather, God changes the oblations into the body and blood of Christ. I am not suggesting that this professor is guilty of heresy or anything like that. I am simply suggesting a lack of precision here that makes his statements open to misinterpretation. As much as some contemporary Orthodox theologians may dislike the Eastern Eucharistic affirmations of the 17th century (the Confession of Mohila, the Confession of Dositheus, the decrees of the Council of Jersualem, etc.), they do helpfully clarify the Orthodox understanding over against the beliefs of the Reformation. See the following hyperlink: Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation [bringyou.to] . And consider the following citation from the distinguished Greek theologian, Panagiotes N. Trembelas (1961):

I do not understand the present Orthodox reluctance to affirm the judgments of the 17th century Orthodox bishops and theologians. Respect for the Eucharist does not necessitate fuzzy thinking on our part, especially in the light of false Protestant teaching over against which even Orthodoxy must now define itself. And may I also iterate that transubstantiation, as defined by the Council of Trent, is not a metaphysical explanation of the mystery of the eucharistic change. It is simply an assertion of the mystery. Orthodox theologians and believers really need to stop charging Catholicism with rationalism here. No doubt some Catholic theologians have over-indulged in such rationalism--perhaps St. Thomas can even be accused of this, though that is debatable--but it is the Tridentine formulation that is the dogma, not a specific theologian and his private opinions. And it is certainly true that post-Vatican II theologians are insistent that the dogma of transubstantiation does not attempt to explain HOW God changes the bread and wine. It simply states that God really does change them--really, truly, and substantially.

One final comment. The Orthodox seminary professor whom I quoted above mentions that transubstantiation shows a distrust for matter. I think this is a completely wrong. Transubstantiation does not assert a physical change of the elements; it asserts a metaphysical change. "Substance" simply states what a thing really is. To say that the consecrated bread and wine are no longer "really" bread and wine is to say that their metaphysical status has now changed. They are no longer bread and wine as we understand and experience bread and wine. The change that has occurred is so deep and profound that to continue to use the words "bread" and "wine" for the consecrated elements (as we find in Scripture and the fathers) is to engage in a form of metaphorical speech. The physical elements that appear on the altar (i.e., the species or appearances) no longer present the substance of bread and wine to us. They efficaciously signify to us the body and blood of our Lord which they now sacramentally "contain." Thus matter is in no way annihilated in the eucharistic conversion. It is rather elevated to the higher status of sacramental signs of the Eucharistic presence of the eternal Son of God.

Oh, by the way, I am not a Catholic myself. I am a high church Anglican and I rarely use the word transubstantiation in my parochial teaching.

Alvin+

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!

You are an Episcopal priest! Did you know I've written a Byzantine Akathist to King Charles the Martyr that the Society of King Charles has just published?

Now on to business . . .

The fact that the West has never defined when Transubstantiation occurs actually means very little with respect to the issue of "Moment of Consecration."

Liturgically, if the priest holds aloft the Host following the Words of Institution for the adoration of the people, then this truly does mean that the people are worshipping Christ's Real Presence then.

Goar, for example, goes into some detail on this and refuses to admit any other meaning to the Words of Institution than what they directly say - which is why he admitted a "double Change," one with the Words of Institution, changing the bread and the wine, and the other with the Epiclesis, producing, as he said, "moral changes" in the communicants.

In fact, while the West has a penchant for defining matters, the practice of "lex orandi, lex credendi" holds true here - and is a part, as you've so comprehensively explained, of the historical liturgical tradition of the Particular Latin Church.

The question that only a Westerner can really answer is why the Epiclesis, in those Western liturgies that had them, was downplayed in subsequent centuries. And also how this was connected to what some perceive to be a downplaying of a more active liturgical role of the Holy Spirit in the celebration of the sacraments in the West. That role is quite monumental in the East, as you know.

Actually, the East DOES have an appreciation for the Western emphasis on the static devotion to the Eucharistic Christ.

But it isn't a positive one!

The "visual element" in devotion to the Eucharist has NO parallel to the icons, but to the way the East approaches the mystery of the Eucharist as such.

What the West wants to expose and show, i.e. the Host, is, in the East, covered up and worshipped as the Mystery it is - icons have nothing to do with it in this instance whatever.

In fact, if the Host actually DID take on the form of Christ as He is in Heaven for all to see - that truly would be something for all the Churches to show during the Liturgy!

The East maintains the historic dynamic understanding of the Eucharist within the context of Trinitarian theology and Theosis.

Static adoration of the Eucharist in Monstrances etc. underscore the Western understanding of the Incarnation, that God humbled Himself to come down to share in our humanity.

For the East, the emphasis is not on God's coming down to become Man, but on our being raised up to the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit through the Divine Liturgy and Holy Communion which is meant to be worshipped of course, but within the context of the Divine Liturgy and our participation in Holy Communion through which we are united to Christ and the Holy Trinity and intensify our experience of Theosis.

In addition, the East sees an alarming historical trend in the West to truly downplay the dynamic role of the Holy Spirit - something that the whole "Filioque" controversy reflected as well.

This led, in the West, to a certain clericalism and heightened status of the person of the priest who spoke the words of Institution in the place of Christ.

The Eastern priest isn't seen in that exalted role, but as the humble minister who recites the Words of Institution, following the Anamnesis, and then invokes the Spirit to fulfill in fact what the Words of Christ portend.

The emphasis is on the action of all three Persons of the Trinity within a prayerful context of the Eucharistic Canon.

Granted, in recent times, the Western Rites have come a long way to restoring a better sense of the process of the Eucharistic Canon, rather than the sacerdotal model that undergirded the devotion to the "Moment of Consecration."

As you've said yourself, we cannot know the exact moment and that is not an appropriate theological exercise to try and determine it.

The most we can ever be sure of is that the Change has already taken place following the end of the Eucharistic Canon, or after the last "Amen" of the Epiclesis.

For the East, to say "This is my Body" and then to expect the change to take place because the priest speaks in the place or name of Christ is a form of "clerical presumption."

The Eucharistic Canon is a prayer invoking the Trinity Itself to effect the change which is why there can never be a "moment of consecration" but a "point after which there is no longer any bread or wine on the altar."

The inclusion of the Epiclesis before the Words of Institution in a number of Western liturgies has united the ancient understanding of the Eucharistic Canon not as a "formula of consecration" but as a prayer, within the context of the wider prayer of the Mass or Liturgy, that makes the sacramental process present within time.

In the Canon, Christ comes down to us in the Liturgy as He did in His Incarnation, but to take us up to His Kingdom with Him, to transfigure us through our participation in His Deified Body in the Spirit to the Glory of God the Father.

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Fr. Kimel,

Yes, as you know, Lutherans allow for belief in either Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

I've also heard Catholic theologians expound on the Eucharist that, at the time, I thought was really Consubstantiation.

As one said, "The bread is not the Body of Christ, but the Body of Christ is somehow IN the bread . . ."

Also, I think that simply because one Orthodox theologian said something like that isn't sufficient to assume that this is the teaching of all of Orthodoxy.

To quote St John of Damascus in his work on icons: Just because one sparrow has sung does not mean that spring is here!

Ultimately, however, I believe that what that theologian said and what the West understands by "accidents remaining after the Consecration" is one and the same thing.

The East has also paid closer attention to the notion of "symbol" than the West - and I believe this caused the Western Catholic Church no end of grief during the Reformation.

The Protestant Reformers maintained that if the Eucharist was "symbolic" then it could not be the "Real Presence." The Western Church at the time maintained the Real Presence, of course, but added that it wasn't "symbolic."

And the East would maintain both. A symbol points to something and represents that something.

But for it to do that, the symbol was partake of the reality of what it points to. That has always been the position of the East.

This is also why it is so important in the East for the Communion bread to be baked with yeast - bread that has "risen" and therefore represents the Risen Christ. And the wine must always be red to symbolize the Blood of Christ.

Yours in the Royal Martyr,

Alex

Remaining in respectful disagreement.

Bread and wine remain on the altar, changed by their union with the body and blood of our Saviour, but still retaining principle characeristics of bread and wine, including nourishment and joy.

Whether we look at a model of theosis or the model of the incarnation of God, in both cases the divine and the human each fully maintain all of their respective attributes.

Is Christ not fully human in all ways but sin? And is not sin outside of human design? As many have said before, he was the perfect human, as human is meant to be. All of the others are subject to death whose "sting is sin."

So the bread and wine that we offer for consecration/sanctification [like the human that offers him/herself completely to God] becomes bread and wine in the way that they are meant to be, and fully in union with God's body and blood.

Isn't this God's desire, that we would be changed and come into union with him, but not obliterated? He even has a name for us that we don't yet know (see Genesis). He wants to bring us to our true vocation in union with him.

These are the models that we point to when discussing the eucharist.

So, searching further in Fr. Hopko's "The Orthodox Faith" volume ii, Worship; I found another casual reference that supports these points:


"The clergy then receive communion from the bread (XC), and drink from the consecrated cup."

No one should become upset by this. The bread IS the Body of Christ. But it is also consecrated bread. What is in the cup IS the blood of Christ, but it is also consecrated wine.

Christ, fully God and fully human. I think that God could do this also.

In Christ,
Andrew

PS: I might add that I do not see a reason why Transubstantiation would keep East and West from intercommunion. Is is not a dogmatic issue.

Dear Reader Andrew,

All right . . .

But if I get into trouble for agreeing with you, well, I'm not taking the blame . . .

Alex

Quote:

"Actually, the East DOES have an appreciation for the Western emphasis on the static devotion to the Eucharistic Christ.

But it isn't a positive one!"

Dear Alex,

Just a few comments and a question or two, arising from this quote, if I may.

The Roman Church shares the belief that the Eucharist is an essentially dynamic activity. That dynamic activity is the continuing act of Sacrificial Love of Christ through which we are made part of His Body. As such we join in making the act of Sacrificial Love in the Liturgy.

Christ is totally engaged in the Act of Love, in the Eucharistic Liturgy.

It is my understanding that the Eucharistic Christ is reserved for sharing with the sick and dying in the East as well as the West. I have been told that the practice of conserving the Eucharistic Christ is neither new nor particularaly western in its development.

In the East, is the Eucharistic Christ seen somehow less dynamic because this is outside of the Liturgical Celebration? Is He seen as being statec? Does He cease being dynamic, kind of frozen in place, at the end of the Liturgical Celebration?

Historical developments in the West led to devotion to the Dynamic Eucharistic Christ, so reserved. The fact that this practice has grown among us does not take an iota away from our love for or participation in the Liturgical Celebration of the Eucharist.

Devotion to the Eucahrst has become an integral part of the West's practices. Though this devotion has the need to see Christ as a basis, it has relational aspects to it as well. Seldom have I seen this reflected in the appreciation of the East for this devotion.

We simply want to show respect for Jesus as He is sacramentally among us in a way that makes sense to us. We want to develop our relationship with Jesus by visiting Him. He, after all, through His Churches, has allowed His Churches to keep Him among us in the Sacrament. He is the Dynamic Lord offering His Salvific Love!

The time spent in the presence of Our Eucharistic Lord is, I think, among the most dynamic interactions in life. It is a continuation of our interaction with Christ in the Liturgical action itself and in the Sacraments.

I cannot understand how one can claim to have a full appreciation of our Eucharistic devotion when it is seen as a "static" devotion. Is it not possible that there is an incomplete appreciation in the East, of one of the most important understandings of the Eucharist among Western Catholics ?

It is true that it is not an Eastern practice, in general. If I recall, though, you have cited examples of Eastern Christians who have practiced devotion. It is different and it arises from different historical experiences. Their appreciation of Eucharistic devotion seems to rise above that fact.

What is it about the Eastern appreciation of our Eucharistic devotion that led you to assert the above?

Does the fact that this is a Western devotion contribute to the appreciation that is not positive?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Steve,

I was quoting Archbishop Raya with respect to "static presence."

Yes, the Eucharist is reserved in the East as well, and no one is questioning that.

And Christ is certainly always "active."

This is simply a comparison of the devotional thematics of East and West in this regard.

The "dynamic" aspect of the Eucharist, and Christ is not only active in the Eucharist, is best expressed for the purpose for which Christ and the Church established it - through the Liturgy and Communion.

The devotion to the Blessed Sacrament does indeed have the potential and present a danger of taking away from a deeper expression of such worship within the context of the Mass.

This is an issue in Roman Catholicism, as I understand, for a number of reasons.

Again, I see it largely as a tradition of the Particular Latin Church. It is a tradition that has come under fire from some quarters and it certainly isn't what one would call "Eastern spirituality." But devotion to the Eucharistic Christ has been well represented in the Eastern Catholic Churches, nevertheless, call it "Latinization" or whatever.

The East focuses its devotional emphasis on the Kingdom of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit within what it considers to be a transcendent, spiritual framework.

The West has tended to be more naturalistic in its celebration of the Incarnation of God the Word, more realistic and even "materialistic" (I just know I'm going to hear from you for that one especially . . .).

To quote from Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

But it just isn't our style.

Alex

Thank you, Alex, for your two fine posts. If I may, I'd like to address several of your points.

You wrote:
Yes, of course. When the priest elevates the Host and the congregation adores, they are truly adoring Christ. But my primary point is that since we are, in the liturgy, dwelling in God's time, "before" and "after" kinds of questions are problematic. The fact that the Western Church decided to adore Christ after the words of institution, doesn't, for example, mean that a subsequent invocation of the Spirit upon the bread and wine is improper. I'm thinking here in particular of the Episcopal rite. The Eucharistic prayer follows the Antiochian pattern, yet the celebrant will often elevate the elements after the words are spoken over the bread and wine.

Let us hypothetically assume the traditional Roman canon, with no explicit epiclesis: Are you willing to declare that when the Catholic Christian adores Christ Jesus at this point in the liturgy, he is in fact actually adoring only bread and wine? I gather that in the past some Orthodox theologians have accused the West of artolatry because of its veneration of the Blessed Sacrament at this point in the Mass. But hopefully we are beyond such narrow thinking. After all, it's the Orthodox who are always reminding us not to rationalistically analyze the Eucharistic mystery.

You ask about why the epiclesis was down-played in those western rites that contained an epiclesis. I'm not a historian, but I suspect the answer has to do with the fact that the Roman canon eventually came to supplant all other Western eucharistic prayers. And this for political reasons and not theological ones.

You wrote:
Yes, I understand that covering up the elements is the Orthodox practice. Does anyone know when the Eastern rite started to do this?

What I am challenging is the Orthodox criticism of Western practice, which you have just presented. To compare the the two rites and to judge critically the piety and practice of one because it does not conform to the piety and practice of the other is, in my opinion, arrogant presumption. I do not summon the East to emulate the Western practice of Eucharistic adoration, but I do ask it to try to sympathetically understand and respect it.

Regarding my comment about eucharistic adoration and the veneration of icons, you have interpreted me in a way I did not intend. I suggest that all Christians desire ways to visibly adore and worship Christ outside of the Mass in a way that involves sight. We need, as Fr Groeschel says, a compositio loci. Eastern Christianity admirably fulfills this need with the veneration of icons. But Western Christianity had no such analogous practice. This void eventually came to be filled by the introduction of eucharistic adoration.

You wrote:

This, of course, is a common Orthodox polemic, and it is certainly one that should be put dismissed as unworthy. Within the linguistic world of medieval and Tridentine Catholicism, the word "grace" often functioned to signify the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. I myself prefer the more explicit Eastern practice and rejoice in the recovery of Spirit-language in the Western Church. The point is that one must not assume that because the Western Christian does not explicitly invoke the Spirit in his prayers that he is not praying for the Spirit of in the Spirit. As an outsider who has experience with both communions, I can tell you that the Holy Spirit is as active--or inactive!--in the life of the Catholic Church as it is in the Orthodox Church--and vice versa. The Catholic Church may have a problem with excessive institutionalism and centralized authority, but the Eastern Church has real problems with the conflation of ethnic and religious identity, as well as a stultifying traditionalism. Both communions often fail to live in the Holy Spirit.

And the common polemic that the filioque is somehow responsible for the institutionalization of the Latin Church is of course silly! It ignores the history of the West and the emergence of the papacy as the only center of civilization in the face of the invasion of the barbarians. I know that Vladimir Lossky liked to blame all Western ills on the filioque, but let's get real. Real life is not so easily reduced to such easy, flippant answers.

Regarding the role of the celebrant in the Eucharistic celebration, I acknowledge that there are differences in understanding between the two traditions, but again it appears that polemics tend to overexaggerate the differences. The Catholic Church is quite aware that the priest is not the one who changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The consecration is a work of the entire Trinity. The priest is simply a servant in this work. He lends his voice and hands to our Lord. Nor does the priest celebrate the Holy Eucharist in isolation from the community of the Church, though the priest enjoys a unique and special role within the liturgy.

I suggest that both communions need to understand the other at its best, not its worst. Differing emphases, different vocabulary and conceptualities does not mean that the other is to be judged deficient. A true ecumenism requires a sincere effort to understand the other sympathetically in the Holy Spirit. Real differences need to be acknowledged, but let's not magnify them for polemical purpose.

Pax,
Alvin+

(To be continued)

Quote:

"The West has tended to be more naturalistic in its celebration of the Incarnation of God the Word, more realistic and even "materialistic" (I just know I'm going to hear from you for that one especially . . .)."

Dear Alex,

Actually, I agree with you!

Thanks for the compliment!

Our appreciation of the Incarnation has led the West to a deep appreciation of the spiritual value of matter, the world, and the human. After all, Incarnation was into human nature and that involves matter. That is the way that God chose to come to us and bring us and His world to Him by the action of the Spirit.

We do tend to try to understand how we can cooperate with the Spirit in His Work. We seek to make it real in the material world among His sons and daughters. In that sense, we are indeed materialistic.

We find our identity in the Eucharist and the Sacraments and the Gospel teachings of the Church. We believe that we have been given the task to further the work of the Incarnation in the world in a way that calls that world to the Father. This is a thing of beauty.

Sometimes it seems to me that sometimes that we can become so enraptured by our religious search for God in the beautiful, that we forget to look for Him in all the other places where He may be found, in the nitty gritty, the real. This could be a danger and our loss.

So, yes, we are rational, realistic, naturalistic, and materialistic because we are looking for God in His gifts of matter and nature in the light of the Good News and our Liturgical and Sacramental lives. Then we express what we have been given in the same venues to bring them to God.

The wonder is that this leads us back to that Beauty Who Creates and calls us to Himself in His Son, through the working of His Spirit. I guess we meet you all in the Mystical.

Unity without Uniformity, I guess. Isn't there beauty and equal value in our approach and the Eastern? Does one have to be better?

Steve

Dear Steve,

Did I say one was better over the other?

It is a matter of spiritual culture - and when it comes to culture, I see it as a sociologist would, rather than a theologian.

It is where we feel most at home and where our beings feel most involved in worship.

To say that something is not "right" for the East doesn't mean it isn't "right" period.

Otherwise, there would only be one universal Rite!

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!

Actually, the East always approached the Eucharist from within the perspective of mystery - the covering up only underscored it.

Again, I am looking at the spiritual cultures of East and West, very much as a sociologist working within a probabilistic theoretical model would, and I suppose I do step on some (positivist )toes in so doing.

But it is not my intention and when I speak of the "Filioque" I am only using it as an "ideal type" to illustrate and not to pronounce infallibly or even generally.

It is not my wish to suggest, for example, that the Spirit is not active in the West!

I'm only looking at the liturgical culture, the noted (by others much more theologically qualified than me) absence of the overt liturgical role of the Spirit in the West for a period of time.

That doesn't mean that the Spirit is absent in the West - it reflects a different perspective than that of the East where the Spirit is also, so I've heard, active!

The impact of this on the administrative model of the Western church is a matter of debate.

No one, and least of all myself, is saying the papacy does not have excellent points about it.

But I would see the growth of the papacy in the face of the vaccuum created by the barbarian invasions and the lack of a strong civil leader as an "outgrowth" of those social and political conditions. It was inevitable and if it was indeed "liberating" then that is a plus for it. But it would have occurred in response to those conditions first and foremost notwithstanding.

So the impact of the "Filioque" is not simply "flippant" - it is so to a Western Catholic such as yourself who has always accepted it as part and parcel of the ancient Catholic faith and Creed - and we both know it certainly was never that.

I think you assume that your assessment of Lossky and Orthodox thinkers is somehow THE assessment, as I gather from your presentation, and really it is a classical and biased, Western view open for debate.

Overt devotion to the Holy Spirit is what is truly liberating in the life of the Church and this surely has an impact on its organizational, doctrinal and devotional life.

The West has tended to emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit and I've read those who say that, in the West, He was the "Forgotten God" and the like.

As someone who came from a very Latin background, what attracted me to the East was precisely its emphasis on the overt liturgical role of the Spirit in the Church and our spiritual lives. The emphasis on Theosis, the Resurrection of Christ, the work of all Three Persons of the Trinity as contained in the frequent liturgical invocation of Them (Rahner's view of the "social conception of God") and the glorification of the Mother of God and the Saints in heaven.

Theosis, for example, is not emphasized in the West, although Meyendorff would say the Thomists did admit of the beatific vision which is similar.

As for the ethnic and other forms of "narrowness" you mention, now that is really an overgeneralized statement!

As a member of the Anglican Communion that is itself composed of national Churches - really!

Your Anglican saints, John Mason Neale, John Keble and Henry Martyn, not only translated Eastern liturgies and worked with Eastern Churches (for which they were highly admired by them), but they understood the truly liberating role the Churches of the EAst played in maintaining their peoples, defending them and preserving them, their culture and their sense of self-hood through years of religious persecution and foreign domination.

And we have never pretended to be somehow "universal" in the Western Catholic sense which has come to mean a universal "Latin" mentality of the West imposed on other cultures.

Orthodoxy has a proven track record of allowing local cultures to grow into it organically and holistically i.e. Siberia, China, Alaska, and now North America.

And this at a time when the West is moving away from its own Western religious patrimony through secularization, a movement begun really at the time of the Reformation in which your own tradition is rooted and which only came to return to its Western Catholicism much later and not without great struggle.

And we know Anglicans very well. We have Anglican Rite Orthodox and Catholics in communion with Rome, but that is an aside.

Orthodoxy has become very closely identified with the culture and identity of the people it has ministered to in history.

The perceived narrowness of it all in North America is not that at all for those Eastern Church members for whom their ethno-cultural Particular Churches are of the utmost relevance to them, as mine is to me.

Alex

Alex wrote:

I need to challenge you here, Alex, if I may. I recognize in your argument the thought of Alexander Schmemann. I love his book on the Eucharist, but I am not persuaded yet by his arguments on symbolism. He ignores the fact that already by the fifth century various Eastern writers are becoming unhappy with the language of symbol by which to speak of the Eucharistic elements. This aversion to this language of symbol has continued and intensified even to the present. Consider the following:

Theodore of Mopsuestia (5th century):

Macarius of Magnesia (5th century):

St. John of Damascus (7th century):
St. Theophylact (11th century):
St. Gregory Palamas (14th century):
Of decisive dogmatic significance is the decision of the 2nd Council of Nicaea and the conflict with iconoclasm. Jaroslav Pelikan notes that on the Eucharist the iconoclasts and the iconodules enjoyed fundamental agreement, but they disagreed on the nature of an image. A true image, the iconoclasts asserted, was homoousios with its prototype. Consequently, the Eucharist was the only proper image of Christ, because the Eucharist is identical in being with Christ. II Nicaea considered the iconoclastic argument and rejected it: the Eucharist is not an image of the body and blood of Christ; it is the body and blood of Christ.

In his Byzantine Theology John Meyendorff notes the Byzantine rejection of the language of symbol to speak of the Eucharist and its impact on the Eastern perception of the Eucharist:

I wonder what Schmemann would say about this development within Orthodox theology and experience. In any case, symbol is not just a Western problem when it comes to the Eucharist. The East also is historically uncomfortable about speaking of the Eucharistic elements as symbols of the body and blood of our Lord. The language of symbol works just fine when we are living in a culture that lives and breathes neo-Platonism. But what happens when our experience is no longer mediated through neo-Platonism, as is the case for us today. Outside of neo-Platonism, folks will naturally posit a separation between a symbol and its object. Surely we do not want to say that the Church's explication of the Faith is necessarily tied to one specific philosophy. In this situation, I imagine we will end up creating the notion of "efficacious signs" or "efficacious symbols"--i.e., special signs that effectively communicate that which they symbolize. Are the East and West really so far apart? I don't think so.

Pax,
Alvin+

oops. sorry for the double posting. i clicked add reply instead of preview, but quickly clicked on "Stop" on my browser and thought I had successfully interrupted the process. I guess I wasn't quick enough.

Dear Alex,

No you did not! Sorry for the implication.

Steve

A quick response, Alex, to your last post. I must have pushed a button with my brief(!) reference to the conflation of religion and ethnic identity. In my defense, let me say that I was only reporting what a number of Orthodox folks have said to me. They are the ones who see it as a major problem within their communion. Indeed, do you not even have a name for this sin (which at the moment escapes me)?

I'm not sure why you brought up Anglicanism here, but I must correct you at one point. Anglicanism is most definitely not a communion of national or state churches. Can you think of one place where to be ____ is to be Anglican? That identification no longer obtains even in England!

In the Episcopal Church to be an Episcopalian does probably mean to be white and middle class. (We long ago ceased to be the favored religion of the upper class!) But fortunately this problem does not not exist in the largest and most vital part of our communion--namely, the churches in Africa!

You are, of course, quite correct that many Anglicans, particularly those belonging to the Anglo-Catholic wing, have looked quite sympathetically to Orthodoxy and have enjoyed exceptionally cordial relations with the Orthodox.

Just in case you were wondering, if I didn't love Orthodoxy, I wouldn't have joined this bulletin board.

Pax,
Alvin+

Bless me a sinner, Father Alvin!

Thank you for sharing with all members of this Board your exhaustive theological knowledge!

You are my favourite kind of Anglican!

Theodore of Mopsuestia had a point in the quote you made - but he isn't honoured in the Orthodox Church for obvious reasons . . .

Your other quotes were not "dissatisfactions" with the use of "symbol" but a DEFENSE of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist against heretics who, like the later Protestants, affirmed the dichotomy between "symbol" and "reality" and maintained that the Eucharist was only the former.

So I don't see in these important quotes the meaning you've given them, but I could be wrong, I don't make it a practice to insist on my own view over and above that of the Clergy, trained in theology in ways that I never will be!

The Anglican Communion is definitely based on national churches, although, I agree with you, not in the same way as Catholic and Orthodox Churches are linked with countries.

HOWEVER, an Anglican from Africa belongs to a Church that is truly Africanized, with local African saints (I think of Blessed James Hannington of Equatorial Africa, Blessed Bernard Mizeki, Blessed Arthur Cripps - then there is Blessed James Coleridge Patteson of Melanesia. Blessed James DeKoven, one of my favourites, of the U.S.). I will refrain from going on about St Charles, King and Martyr .

It is to its great credit that the Anglican Communion has adapted to the national cultures of the peoples among which it has established roots.

And it promotes this kind of national inculturalisation - again to its great credit.

As does the Latin Church these years.

That is all I meant when I made the comparison with the Orthodox Eastern Churches.

It is not a perfect comparison, of course.

Alex

To all:

So much focus on the "changes" taking place on the bread and wine at the Eucharist.

How about the "two becomes one" change during the sacred mystery of crowning? or the "new life" that occurs when one is baptized?

Do two married couples change substance? Are they tranfigured? Is this new life just words?

What words/language/philosophical system do we use to describe these other sacred mysteries whereby the Holy Spirit is called down to transform them?

Does speculation increase our chance of understanding the changes taking place?

How does the Kodak Moment of "transubstantiation" apply elsewhere? Do two people really or symbolically become one, whereby their "accidents" remain?

Dear Cantor Joe,

You da Man!

Alex

And as much as I try, it's usually JoeT who throws the knockout punch!

In Christ,
Cantor Andrew.

Regarding ethnicity and the Church:

In my meaner moments at seminary (I had one or two as I recall), I would set up my fellow seminarians who were rabidly against ethnicity in the Church.

I would say (like a nice guy) "so you want to use only English, right?" They'd reply, "Yes! Yes!"

"And you want music written here by the faithful in North America, right?" They'd reply, "Yes! Oh, Yes!"

"And you don't want clergy imported from abroad, but clergy from amongst the faithful here in North America?" They'd reply, "Exactly! You finally understand us!"

I would reply, "Yes, I do. And I wish to congratulate you. What you have just defined is another ethnic Church - The American Orthodox Church. We need such, we have such (more and more), and I support such. But don't you dare try to knock down the other ethnic Churches that brought you this faith."

They were not amused.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

As far as knockout punches are concerned, I would say your post above is good for a ten count!

Alex

Indeed, I think Joe T. has hit it on the head.
Fr. Kimel was making a distinction earlier (in order to defend transubstantiation from the charge of matter phobia) between "physical" and "metaphysical realities". It seems to me that as soon as you start using philosophical distinctions like this, you may as well be saying "It's all a mystery" because nobody knows what those words mean. I know people say they know what a metaphysical reality is, but they really don't. And Fr. Kimel's posts reveal that he knows enough philosophy to appreciate this. (and of course he made the point that western doctrine does not proclaim the end of mystery)

At the end of the day all we really know is

1. It's the Body and Blood of our Lord
2. It still looks and tastes like bread and wine

If you want to use words like substance and accidents to say 1. and 2. Be my guess, but I dont think you could use them to teach me anything that I didn't just say. Those words just don't mean much anymore. Philosophy changes. The Faith stays the same.

Peace,

David Lewis

Dear David Lewis,

Yes, excellent points!

The Eastern Churches have tended to have a good deal of wariness about them with respect to the Greek philosophies, especially Neo-platonism.

It is clear that St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, allowed this philosophy to influence his theology - and the Church didn't like some of his conclusions at all.

The fact is that St Paul does indeed call Holy Communion "Bread" and our Lord Himself did that as well at the Mystical Supper before His Passion.

The word for "Bread" that our Lord used in Chapter Six of the Gospel of John, referring to Himself of course, is "Superessential Bread."

And it is the same word that He uses in the prayer "Our Father" for "Daily Bread."

"Superessential Bread" would then be identical to what Reader Andrew has proposed here and would certainly not be, in any way, a form of "Consubstantiation."

Alex

David,

I believe I read something on the same lines as your post in Thomas Aquinas' posthumous publication, "Its All Straw, Folks."

I think that Fr. Kimel has made some exceptionally good points.

We humans have the tendency to want to "understand" both the physical world around us as well as the non-physical realities of our existence such as love, hate, etc. To make use of philosophical principles to distinguish between the external, empirical reality of "bread" and "wine" and the reality of this particular Holy-Spirited bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ is just our poor attempt to understand what the Lord said to us. Granted, it's nowhere near "perfect" in capturing the reality, but it works - at least for a goodly number of people.

To dismiss the philosophical framework upon which theology is constructed is to devolve into fundamental Unitarianism: there's a God; that is all. Go kiss those trees.

If one doesn't make use of the philosophical framework to construct theology, then I'm terrified of what the un-philosophical will do with concepts like "soul", "grace", "sin", "life", "death" and -- Saints-preserve-us! - "salvation". While philosophy may seem like an arcane science, akin to gnosticism for some, it is the only method by means of which we can link the notions/ideas of our faith. If one doesn't like this then one must be reduced to fundamentals: it all comes down to love of God and love of one's neighbor. Easy.

Blessings!

Of course the simple formula [it all comes down to love of God and one's neighbor] begs a question which is:

From where did we get that simple formula?

The answer: the word of God as recorded in scripture, as carried down to us by His Church. So the origin and interpretation through time of the simple formula matters. If we want to be true to it, then we accept the context from which it comes to us.

Any interpretation which ignores the context of the original creator of the thing being interpreted will always be victim to relativism.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dr. John,

You make an excellent point. Without the use of philosophical concepts (often the most precise) we would be left with an alternative that would probably be much worse. Athanasius used some pretty high and mighty philosophical jargon to defend the apostle's teaching on the nature of Christ (ousion) and we're all glad that he did it, right? That's how these things work. You do the best with what you have.

But of course, I never said that we shouldn't use philosophical concepts and vocabulary to aid theological effort. Mine was simply a warning against overconfidence. They can be helpful sometimes, but not always as helpful as we'd like to believe. Sure, philosophical jargon helped St. Thomas explain what the church teaches about the eucharist. They didn't, however, and couldn't possibly have, explained the mystery.

My point is just that philosophical discourse is limited in the same ways that every other human discourse is limited, i.e. by culture, context, finitude, perspective, etc. Let's make use of the tools but never forget their limitations.

And we don't know what words like metaphysical, substance, accident, and the like really mean, however helpful they may be. We know what they mean in relation to the other words that the Scholastics used to describe reality as best they understood it. But scholastic metaphysics is only one way to describe reality. Do you think that there really are substances and accidents out there? Does the Church's use of this language to dogmatise about the nature of the Eucharist entail that these things exist? I think this is an interesting question, and I suspect the answer is no. The Church's teaching is true and infallible even if it turns out that scholastic metaphysics is not. What do you think?

Nothing's easy.

Peace,

David

Dear David,

You also "have hit the nail on the head," if I may say so.

A blessed feast of the Annunciation to you and yours.

In Christ,
Andrew

Ah, herein lies the rub: "The Church's teaching is true and infallible even if it turns out that scholastic metaphysics is not. What do you think?"

While I agree in principle, the question remains: we use language to express belief. And language is necessarily both social and contextual. How we interpret what one or another has said (including even the words of the scripture) is dependent upon other circumstantial realities. Unfortunately, unlike mathematical propositions: a+b=c, words are not immutably defined.

So, while we can postulate that the Church's teaching (in language) is eternal and true, the fact remains that it is always going to be interpret-able, because language changes over time. And when one goes from one language to another, we have some serious issues; and when the interpretation goes from one language to another OVER TIME, we are in even deeper trouble. It's just a basic fact. And mandates real catechesis and study, and - dare I say it - scholarship in language and culture.

The word: "transubstantiation" was derived in the context of scholastic philosophy and theology. To use it outside of this context is to open the door to the 'anything-goes' school of theology. If one wishes to abjure scholasticism, that is fine. But be careful NOT to use scholastic terms outside of their context; this is truly 'walking on the wild side' theologically.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

I read your post and find that I disagree with absolutely nothing that you've written. I love it when this happens.

Blessings to you,

David

Fr Aidan Nichols offers the following thoughts in his book The Holy Eucharist. They may be relevant to this thread:

Is the language of substance and appearances (Trent does not use the word "accidents") truly tied to scholastic philosophy in such a way that one cannot understand what Trent is saying unless one has taken a course in scholasticism? I don't think so. Perhaps this is true in order to understand St. Thomas's analysis, but I doubt it is true to understand the dogma as articulated by Trent.

Before the Eucharistic Prayer begins, we ask, What is that that sits on the altar? and we answer, bread and wine. After the Eucharistic Prayer we ask the same question, but now we answer, the body and blood of Christ. The consecrated elements appear to us as bread and wine, but in reality they are the body and blood of Christ. If I understand Trent correctly (and I may not), this is all the Council intended by its use of the word "substance."

Is there any culture on earth that cannot find a way to say this?

Faithfully,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I'm sure every culture can find a way to say this. And if THAT is all that is meant, then there really hasn't been any explanation. Things are just as miraculous and mysterious as ever. And that's fine, of course.

I don't have a problem with the lingo as long as it's understood for what it is.

Peace,

DL

Precisely! Transubstantiation is not an explanation of the Eucharistic mystery. It is an affirmation of the mystery as defined over against insufficient or unacceptable statements (e.g., consubstantiation, memorialism, etc.)

In the Anglican/Roman Catholic aggreement on the Eucharist, we read the following:

Pax,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

Dear Father Kimel,

That's a fantastic quote, and will probably be as helpful in dialogue with Orthodox as it was intended to be in dialogue with Anglicans. How should I respond if someone challenges the validity/authority of this document? Do you know where I could find it?

Thanks,

David

I wave my magic wand, say the appropriate words [no epiclesis!] and ... VOILA

ARCIC Windsor Statement [members.rogers.com]

ARCIC Eucharist [prounione.urbe.it]



AFK+

Dear Friends,

Fr. Kimel and Dr. John make important points born of in depth philosophical and theological training.

The point on Transubstantiation, I would insist, isn't a general philosophical OR theological one, from an East-West comparison.

Both sides agree on the theology of the Eucharist and of the change that takes place.

It is a subjective distinction we are talking about here, rather than an objective one.

To reject "Transubstantiation" is not to reject the fundamental doctrine it conveys.

It is to reject the subjective, spiritual-cultural aspect of it that reflects Latin spirituality and not Eastern spirituality.

The two aspects, objective and subjective, exist simultaneously, and those dealing with theology often confuse the two, taking the former, dealing with doctrine, on the same footing as the latter.

The same occurred here when our friend, RayK, believed, sincerely, that by rejecting Augustinian notions of Original Sin, Easterners are rejecting "Original Sin" altogether, or else have an "underdeveloped" notion of Original Sin - which I tried to show him was not the case at all.

In another example, Mike and Teen Logo believed I was rejecting the Papacy if I didn't accept the Pope's authority over the Particular Latin Church as its Patriarch etc.

Theology, given its affinity with philosophy, has always needed, I believe, the perspective of the behavioural sciences on human culture to bring a better balance about with respect to the objective and subjective that is not always differentiated - to the detriment of theology and especially of ecumenism!

Alex

Alex wrote: Alex, I'm afraid you have lost me here. Can you specify for us this subjective dimension about transubstantiation that Eastern Christians reject? Thanks.

Fr K

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!

Yes, the "subjective" side that Eastern Christians reject with respect to Transubstantiation is what we perceive to be its "mechanistic" and even "philosophical" aspects.

For Eastern Christians, Transubstantiation is often understood as something that occurs "automatically" and definitively by the Priest pronouncing the Words of Institution.

There is almost a sense that there is a much greater "logical" understanding about what happens in the mystery of the Eucharist via Transubstantiation - when the East prefers not to philosophize about the Mystery, but to bow in worship before it.

This Eastern perception of how the West views the Eucharist is supported, from the Eastern perspective, by the Western Adoration of the visible Eucharist in the Monstranced. For the East, the Eucharist is worshipped and bowed before as a "Mysterium Tremendum" and not as something that can be related to in this way.

This is whay I mean by my use of "subjective" aspect of Transubstantiation.

Again, "objectively," there is no difference between East and West.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Did you mean to say "Western" Christians instead of "Eastern" Christians here?

Dear Qathuliqa,

No.

Alex

Dear Alex,

So are you talking, then, about the perception Eastern Christians have of the Western teaching on transubstantiation? I am honestly having a bit of trouble figuring it out, and that's why I'm asking. Maybe it is just one of those weeks!

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

Yes.

The Eastern perception has tended to see the RC Transubstantiation as being something that flows from the sacramental power of the Priest rather than from the Spirit in the Epiclesis with the Priest passively invoking the Spirit.

So the Priest, in the West, in pronouncing the Words of Institution is taking the place of Christ at the Mystical Supper and is doing what He did.

The East denies this and sees the Words of Institution as an historical narrative with the Holy Spirit in the "active sacramental" role here.

Again, it is a subjective view - objectively there is no real difference.

Alex

And Alex's point explains why Orthodox Theologians do not look upon the Last/Mystical Supper and insist that the apostles consumed the Lord's body and blood at that Passover meal. But ever since He Himself became the Passover sacrifice, they and we do consume His body and blood.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, this is a very interesting point you have made. Can you recommend an article or book where an Orthodox theologian discusses the Last Supper in this light. Thank you.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

Dear Reader Andrew,

But is this explanation a "normative" one for Orthodoxy?

If Christ said, "This is My Body," can anyone assume that it was otherwise?

Or is it simply a difference between two types of Communion - the Mystical Supper having been effected by Christ Himself directly and the Divine Liturgy, beginning with Pentecost, being effected by the action of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit in the Epiclesis in particular?

You see, I didn't have the benefit of attending St Vladimir's Seminary!

But it sounds like you guys who did had a very stimulating intellectual time of it!!

Alex

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I'll take a look at Father Breck's books and my notes from his classes this evening and see what I can find. I recall that he made this point, but I could be mistaken.

It is not something that I ever sought to pursue further as it just seemed so obvious that He is our paschal lamb sacrificed on Holy Friday.

I'll go out on a limb and say that we may find the explanation that I offered to be the mind of the Eastern Church only because we may fail to find patristic writings which speak of the Mystical Supper as the first eucharist. But obviously, it points to it.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Ah, yes!

Not being a theologian, you will have to bear with me.

It is clear that Orthodoxy understands the Mystical Supper as something quite distinct from the Divine Liturgy, eventhough the Divine Liturgy is a continuation of the Mystical Supper.

The first Eucharist ever then was celebrated by the Apostles on Pentecost and it does symbolize the Mystical Supper.

Whatever . . .

Alex

Ahhh yes, Alex is back!

I think that if we keep the "do this in remembrance of me" part of it close at hand then we see that he is speaking of what "we" will do to remember "Him" and have Him with us after He departs. While He is there, they don't need to "remember" Him.

At the Mystical Supper the apostles commune with the real presence of Christ, his body and blood present. At the eucharistic meal we commune with the real presence of Christ, his body and blood present.

All meals should be a kind of communion. Eating is taken so casually in much of North American culture that people fail to realize this.

It's so good to have you back, sun tan and all!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Thank you for your gracious welcome back!

You are so learned that I can only hope to sit at your feet and gaze at the light that emanates from your face - tanned or not!

Certainly, what you said resonates loudly at the appearance of Christ near Emmaus. When the two disciples recognized Christ in the breaking of the bread, He disappeared physically from sight etc.

And at the Mystical Supper Christ did tell the Apostles to "Do this in remembrance of Me."

But He was surely referring to the future Eucharist without this having any impact on the reality of what He Himself was doing at the Mystical Supper?

And if the Apostles were already communing with Christ in His Real Presence among them at the Mystical Supper, why did Christ give them the Bread and Wine, having declared it to be His Body and Blood?

If, as you argue, there was no need for the Apostles to commune of the actual Eucharist at the Mystical Supper because Christ was Personally among them, does not that also hold true during the Divine Liturgy when we really commune of His Body and Blood, even though He is really among us (where two or three gather)?

I don't see the theological necessity of having Christ ontologically present in only one mode at a time and that where He is already present in one mode, He cannot be also present in another (ie. Holy Communion).

Christ is not only present in Holy Communion in the Divine Liturgy, but throughout.

Anyway, what do I know?

Alex

Andrew, I look forward to hearing from what you learn from Fr Breck's lecture notes. This is an interesting question.

However, some of the Fathers did offer contrary opinions. Here are a couple testimonies:

St. Aphrahat the Persian (4th century): St. Augustine: St. John Chrysostom: St. Ephrem:

Dear Fr. Kimmel, Alex, et. al.,

I'll confess that Patristics were my weak point. Thanks for the patristic quotes. I hope that you don't find too many others .

During a course titled, "The Synoptic Gospels" (New Testament 201) I wrote notes from our instructor's lecture on 16 October 1995:

*****
Mark is fond of detail, but "the green grass" is only at Passover. This feeding of the 5,000 is a paschal context/image. He takes and receives that which he sent the disciples to find. No epiclesis until Pentecost. The words of institution in the upper room are not the eucharist but the institution of the eucharist.

Proleptic implies participation, but fullness is to come later. 4 verbs: take (what is God's), bless (bless God in Thanksgiving), break, give (to the disciples).

II Kings 4 Prophet Elisha "bringing the man of God 20 loaves of barley....how shall there be enough?" 12 baskets of broken pieces are left over meaning that the whole of Israel (12 tribes) has been filled and more is left over for the Gentiles to be fed.
*****

I believe that one of the instructor's points was that these actions (the institution of the eucharist and the feeding of the 5,000) are meant to point toward a fulfillment of these actions in the future, after all (the cross, the resurrection on the third day, the glorious ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand) has been accomplished.

This same point was also made earlier in the day's lecture:

*****
Luke: Christ sends out 12 and later 70. 12 were uneventful. 70 came back rejoicing. A dual track revellation of Jesus to his disciples and the seventy. The seventy foreshadow the Pentecostal Church.
*****

Some of our books were:

The Gospel Image of Christ, Veselin Kesich
The First Day of the New Creation, Kesich
Authority and Passion, Bp Demetrios Trakatellis
Spirit of Truth (part 1), Rev. John Breck
The Power of the Word, Rev. Breck
The Shape of Biblical Language, Rev. Breck
The Message of the Bible, Cronk

I hope that this is useful.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Brethren,
Again a case of semantics - I think both East and West are one in the faith.
If the West understands the "change" to take place at the "words of institution" by the priest, it is still the Holy Spirit which brings about the change. Let God be God! Stop spliting hairs.
Peace and Blessings,
Stephanos I
Unworthy Monk and Arch sinner