Transubstantiation

[Servus Iesu]

If anyone is willing to discuss it, I'd like to discuss your views of what happens at the Consecration. Do you believe that transubstantiation is a valid concept? If not how would your churches explain the Eucharist to their catechumens?

[Orthosdoxa]

This topic tends to get controversial, when discussed with Catholics, for some reason. I hope it doesn't this time.

I would say, we have no official explanation of how it changes or exactly what happens. We just know it changes, in a holy mystery, to the precious Body and Blood. And that's all. :)

LK

[Servus Iesu]

I see no reason why it needs to get heated... I propose the question in an academic spirit.

I have a second question, if I may. Is the Divine Liturgy spoken of in sacrificial terms? Is it considered to be a true sacrifice to the Father for sin?

[choirfiend]

It is an active participation in THE sacrifice that was made once, for all time, on a hill outside the city of Jerusalem. It is part of an eternal participation in that same sacrifice, bound not by the human restraints of time or space.

[buzuxi02]

Not exactly sure what transubstantiation is , ive also heard of the word consubstantiation. Not sure if they mean the same thing.

But anyways we believe that upon the invocation of the Epiklisis (Calling down of the Holy Spirit by the priest) the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of our Lord. How this occurs is a mystery,
In Orthodoxy this is a bloodless sacrifice and as the above thread teaches, it is not the re-doing of the crucufixion but participation in the same sacrifice.

Jesus confirms this sacrifice at the mystical supper in Matt 26.28- "For this is the blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

[Ioan cel Nou]

Not exactly sure what transubstantiation is , ive also heard of the word consubstantiation. Not sure if they mean the same thing.

But anyways we believe that upon the invocation of the Epiklisis (Calling down of the Holy Spirit by the priest) the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of our Lord. How this occurs is a mystery,
In Orthodoxy this is a bloodless sacrifice and as the above thread teaches, it is not the re-doing of the crucufixion but participation in the same sacrifice.

Jesus confirms this sacrifice at the mystical supper in Matt 26.28- "For this is the blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

Transsubstantiation is the belief that the substance of the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood whilst keeping the accidents (which means still appearing to be bread and wine). This just seems like an over rational attempt to explain what we leave as a Mystery, though maybe someone here might have a different view. Consubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine remain bread and wine but that Christ is truly present in them. This seems over rational in a slightly different sense and is the way in which Lutherans understand the Real Presence. I don't think the Orthodox view really fits in exactly with either camp.

James

[Orthocat]

The people above have said it all. :thumbsup:

[InnerPhyre]

You will sometimes hear Orthodox Christians say that we believe in transubstantiation. The term itself is acceptable to use, but we do not believe in the same concept of transubstantiation that Catholics do...with the accidents and substances and what not...that's Aristotle's mind, not God's.

We don't really explain it at all. It's a mystery that is beyond our comprehension. It simply becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Servus Iesu]

Happy Birthday by the way.

[Colabomb]

It is an active participation in THE sacrifice that was made once, for all time, on a hill outside the city of Jerusalem. It is part of an eternal participation in that same sacrifice, bound not by the human restraints of time or space.
This is what I believe.

[Xpycoctomos]

...that's Aristotle's mind, not God's.

How the Catholic Church goes about explaining it is definitely Aristotilian, but we ALL use SOMEONE'S mind to explain the business of God to humans. Although we are not over all Platonian, we definitely have use his expressions and ways of thinking to shape our way of describing the mysteries . And trhe West use Aristotle among others. There is nothing wrong with this (actaully, we really don't have a choice BUT to use the language and concepts passed down to us from generations passed) as long as it does not overstep its bounds and we continue to recognize the severe limitations of human philosophy.

I agree with the general sentiment among most Orthodox (now days) that the explanation of the substance and the accidents and so on is a bit overkill and wholly unnecessary.

In the end, what matters is that we believe that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Whether you believe that the bread and wine are still somehow there or not is of a totally different and very secondary matter.

While I do feel the western explanation of what happens iborders on the absurd and useless, that is only MY opinion because for me it is completely useless. I have my problems with it... but I see it as a personal matter. From anything I can tell, the only official concensus in the Orthodox Church that the Eucharist TRULY is the Body and Blood of CHrist nad not just some powerful symbol.

However, if the doctrine of Transubstantion as expounded upoin by the Catholic Church (and many Fathers) has helped safeguard the West from the heretical belief of some protestants that it was just a mere symbol, then I say that the doctrine is a great thing and I do not see how it can be a stumbling block for anyone if in the end it takes them as far away as possible from thinking it is a mere symbol.

John

PS Maximus (our friend who used to come here a lot) and I disagreed strongly on this point. So I can say that there are those Orthodox who strongly stand by the doctrine and have the references to back it up.

[Vedant]

I believe transubstantiation was defined as a result of the Reformation by people who were challenging (e.g. Luther) that the bread and wine were still bread and wine plus the Body and Blood. Catholoics and Orthodoxy both believe that what the Eucharist is, is the Body and Blood of Christ, simple as that. Neither teach that there is something else present in the Eucharist or that there is no Real Presence, but just a memorial of Christ.

Transubstantiation makes complete sense when observing the Eucharist from a more human, temporal perspective. That is, what happens to the things on the altar that we are seeing right now? However, Orthodox Christians attempt to observe it from a more divine perspective, that is, what is happening in entirety and in eternity? It's a overwhelming to understand, so Orthodoxy just leaves it as a mystery.

I don't think this is an area where Catholics and Orthodoxy disagree theologically. Neither really contradict each other, but focus on different aspects of the Eucharist.

[gitlance]

We believe the same thing ... those of us in the Catholic west just have a word for it, while those in the Catholic east, as well as the Eastern Orthodox, would prefer not to use that term -- even though the term itself is just an attempt at explaining how what we already believe is made manifest.

[gitlance]

I believe transubstantiation was defined as a result of the Reformation by people who were challenging (e.g. Luther) that the bread and wine were still bread and wine plus the Body and Blood. Catholoics and Orthodoxy both believe that what the Eucharist is, is the Body and Blood of Christ, simple as that. Neither teach that there is something else present in the Eucharist or that there is no Real Presence, but just a memorial of Christ.

Transubstantiation makes complete sense when observing the Eucharist from a more human, temporal perspective. That is, what happens to the things on the altar that we are seeing right now? However, Orthodox Christians attempt to observe it from a more divine perspective, that is, what is happening in entirety and in eternity? It's a overwhelming to understand, so Orthodoxy just leaves it as a mystery.

I don't think this is an area where Catholics and Orthodoxy disagree theologically. Neither really contradict each other, but focus on different aspects of the Eucharist.
St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe, was the first to use the term -- and it was later adopted in council as being the best known way to describe the mystery of the Eucharist.

[The Prokeimenon!]

This reminds me of a question I've had:

The RCC uses the words "Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity" to describe the Real Presence. We Orthodox just say "Body & Blood." Is the "Soul & Divinity" part wrong by Orthodox standards or is it just a difference in how we word things?

Rdr Moses

[choirfiend]

My first instinct is that we're so incarnational and christological that we dont separate body from soul from divinity, or the physical from the spiritual, even in name, thereby Body and Blood is what is it (as Christ named it) and the Divinity of Christ is present, not titled as a separate aspect of Christ's body, but as a united Person of two natures.

[The Prokeimenon!]

My first instinct is that we're so incarnational and christological that we dont separate body from soul from divinity, or the physical from the spiritual, even in name, thereby Body and Blood is what is it (as Christ named it) and the Divinity of Christ is present, not titled as a separate aspect of Christ's body, but as a united Person of two natures.

That's kind of what I was thinking- but I've never heard it talked about before. Makes sense!

Thanks,
Rdr Moses