eucharist question

[Amandine]

Hi, I have a question about defining the eucharistic properties. I recall hearing from some Orthodox on here at one time that it an individual believer can believe transubstanation, even call it that, but the Orthodox Church itself will refuse to give it any definition. However, after youth group this evening, I overheard our two priests (EO of course) say that an Orthodox Christian individual can NOT believe transubstanation AT ALL. I didn't catch the exact reasons why it's wrong, so I was hoping you'd refresh me on the subject... am I recalling incorrectly or are they being overly strict?
-Catherine

[MariaRegina]

Hi, I have a question about defining the eucharistic properties. I recall hearing from some Orthodox on here at one time that it an individual believer can believe transubstanation, even call it that, but the Orthodox Church itself will refuse to give it any definition. However, after youth group this evening, I overheard our two priests (EO of course) say that an Orthodox Christian individual can NOT believe transubstanation AT ALL. I didn't catch the exact reasons why it's wrong, so I was hoping you'd refresh me on the subject... am I recalling incorrectly or are they being overly strict?
-Catherine

Dear Catherine:

It would help to know the priest's background.

If the Eastern Orthodox Priests are cradle Orthodox -- they usually see nothing wrong with believing in transubstantiation.

If however, the Orthodox Priests are protestant converts, then sometimes they may tend toward holding anti-Catholic feelings, and so they might say that believing in transubstantiation is wrong. However, a local Greek synod did rule that transubstantiation is correct. I will search the threads here to find the quote that our priests sent us.

Yours truly in Christ-God,
Elizabeth

[MariaRegina]

This is taken from a post I previously posted in TAW in July of 2003:

I asked a devout scholarly Greek Orthodox Priest, who prefers to remain unnamed, about the local councils of the Greek Orthodox Church and their effect on the life, belief and practices in the Greek Orthodox parishes specifically in relation to the Holy Mysteries. Here is the complete message he sent me without any deletions, corrections or additions:

<1. The sentiment expressed at the Council is consistent with the Orthodox Faith. Going back to St. Basil himself, it is the Faith that bread and wine become truly and really the Holy and Precious Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior.>

<2. The word "transubstantiation", taken in the sense that the bread and wine are truly transformed as being actual Body and Blood of Christ (through the grace of the Holy Spirit) is not un-Orthodox. However, it is not consistent with Orthodox thinking that the word "transubstantiation" should be taken to mean a "chemical or physical" change (though, in some way undetected) of the bread and wine into actual flesh or blood-plasma. This latter "scientific" way of thinking was never advanced by the Holy Fathers and is truly inconsistent with the Orthodox view of "mysterion".>

[Amandine]

However, it is not consistent with Orthodox thinking that the word "transubstantiation" should be taken to mean a "chemical or physical" change (though, in some way undetected) of the bread and wine into actual flesh or blood-plasma. This latter "scientific" way of thinking was never advanced by the Holy Fathers and is truly inconsistent with the Orthodox view of "mysterion".>
Ah! That type of definition was probably what they meant. I recall something like "It's fully Jesus, but it's still bread and wine..."
-Catherine

[Dominus Fidelis]

However, it is not consistent with Orthodox thinking that the word "transubstantiation" should be taken to mean a "chemical or physical" change (though, in some way undetected) of the bread and wine into actual flesh or blood-plasma. This latter "scientific" way of thinking was never advanced by the Holy Fathers and is truly inconsistent with the Orthodox view of "mysterion".>


Who thinks it is a "scientific" change? :scratch:

[Maximus]

We Orthodox do believe in transubstantiation, insofar as transubstantiation means the complete transformation of the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the true Body and Blood of Christ.

The Eucharist is not bread and wine + Christ. It is not merely a symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not bread and wine + "a spiritual Presence."

It is the true Body and Blood of Christ and NOTHING LESS.

"What seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste; but the Body of Christ. What seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so; but the Blood of Christ" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers, p. 61).

From the Orthodox Council of Constantinople (1727): "Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is bloodlessly sacrificed. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in one kind only, the whole and complete Christ is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word transubstantiation, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ."

[Dominus Fidelis]

Maximus rules.

:)

[Maximus]

Maximus rules.

:)
Actually, our brother Isshinwhat rules.

I would not have known about that passage from the Council of Constantinople had it not been for him.

:bow:

[Dominus Fidelis]

Actually, our brother Isshinwhat rules.

I would not have known about that passage from the Council of Constantinople had it not been for him.

:bow:

Yes, Neal rules too...you both rule. :P I wonder which one is first among equals in this "ruling?"

:D

[Oblio]

Well, Maximus is Top Poster at another board :D

[MariaRegina]

<1. The sentiment expressed at the Council is consistent with the Orthodox Faith. Going back to St. Basil himself, it is the Faith that bread and wine become truly and really the Holy and Precious Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior.>

<2. The word "transubstantiation", taken in the sense that the bread and wine are truly transformed as being actual Body and Blood of Christ (through the grace of the Holy Spirit) is not un-Orthodox. However, it is not consistent with Orthodox thinking that the word "transubstantiation" should be taken to mean a "chemical or physical" change (though, in some way undetected) of the bread and wine into actual flesh or blood-plasma. This latter "scientific" way of thinking was never advanced by the Holy Fathers and is truly inconsistent with the Orthodox view of "mysterion".>

This above quote from the priest directly refers to the statement quoted by Maximus from the Orthodox Council of Constantinople,

"What seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste; but the Body of Christ. What seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so; but the Blood of Christ" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers, p. 61).

From the Orthodox Council of Constantinople (1727): "Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is bloodlessly sacrificed. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in one kind only, the whole and complete Christ is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word transubstantiation, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ."

The priest was affirming the decisions reached by the Council of Constantinople but protecting that definition from those who are too scientific minded - the rationalists.

[Maximus]

Well, Maximus is Top Poster at another board :D
"Top Poster" in my case = diarrhea of the keyboard. :sorry:

I just can't shut up.

Lord have mercy!

[Dominus Fidelis]

"Top Poster" in my case = diarrhea of the keyboard. :sorry:

I just can't shut up.

Lord have mercy!

Hey, I had 10,000 posts here before I was banned.

So, you can feel better now. :D

[Polycarp1]

I think that we can find agreement that (1) Christ is Really Present in the consecrated Bread and Wine, which become His Body and Blood in a Holy Mystery, and (2) Transubstantiation is one way of trying to wrap limited human minds around a divine miracle, by using the Aristotelian-Scholastic terms and categories of metaphysical philosophy to try to explain how that Holy Mystery happens.

The Orthodox and the Anglicans and Lutherans abide by the doctrine of the Real Presence -- and avoid, to the extent possible, arguing about how it happens, worshipping instead the Christ who gives Himself to us under the forms of bread and wine.

Perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas, who formally formulated the doctrine, says it best:


Humbly I adore Thee, Verity unseen,
who thy glory hidest 'neath these shadows mean;
lo!, to thee surrendered, my whole heart is bowed,
tranced as it beholds Thee, shrined within the cloud.

Taste and touch and vision to discern Thee fail;
faith, that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil.
I believe whate'er the Son of God hath told;
what the Truth hath spoken, that for truth I hold.

O memorial wondrous of the Lord's own death;
living Bread that givest all thy creatures breath,
grant my spirit ever by Thy life may live,
to my taste Thy sweetness never-failing give.

Jesus, whom now hidden, I by faith behold,
what my soul doth long for, do not, Lord, withhold:
face to face thy splendor, I at last may see,
in the glorious vision, blessed Lord, of Thee.

[thereselittleflower]

We Orthodox do believe in transubstantiation, insofar as transubstantiation means the complete transformation of the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the true Body and Blood of Christ.

The Eucharist is not bread and wine + Christ. It is not merely a symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not bread and wine + "a spiritual Presence."

It is the true Body and Blood of Christ and NOTHING LESS.

"What seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste; but the Body of Christ. What seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so; but the Blood of Christ" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers, p. 61).

From the Orthodox Council of Constantinople (1727): "Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is bloodlessly sacrificed. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in one kind only, the whole and complete Christ is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word transubstantiation, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ."
Maximus

Thank you for posting this! It goes far towards dispelling misconceptions and towards uity in truth. :)


Peace in Him!

[MariaRegina]

Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ.

emphasis mine

This is interesting. Don't the Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox use unleavened bread in their Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon? Is it because of this, that some Orthodox refuse to recognize the Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox as valid?

And then the Eastern Catholics use leavened bread for their Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

When was unleavened bread first used? When was leavened bread first used?

[Suzannah]

I just wanted to answer the OP since I am a catechumen and this issue was discussed in class last night. The priest of our parish specifically said: "If you believe that it is transubstantiation, this is fine. The Orthodox Church will not dictate how you think of it, or imagine it, or define it. But you must believe that Christ is Present in the bread andthe wine, in order to be in line with Orthodox teaching. It is a mystery the Church does not attempt to define. If you find it helpful to think of it as 'transubstantiation', then this is okay with us as long as you don't insist everyone else think of it that way. As long as you believe that it is a Real Presence, you are inside the Church teaching."

Hope this helps!

[Polycarp1]

I just wanted to answer the OP since I am a catechumen and this issue was discussed in class last night. The priest of our parish specifically said: "If you believe that it is transubstantiation, this is fine. The Orthodox Church will not dictate how you think of it, or imagine it, or define it. But you must believe that Christ is Present in the bread andthe wine, in order to be in line with Orthodox teaching. It is a mystery the Church does not attempt to define. If you find it helpful to think of it as 'transubstantiation', then this is okay with us as long as you don't insist everyone else think of it that way. As long as you believe that it is a Real Presence, you are inside the Church teaching."

Hope this helps!
/me gives thanks for a wise priest and teacher :bow: :priest:

[Amandine]

I just wanted to answer the OP since I am a catechumen and this issue was discussed in class last night. The priest of our parish specifically said: "If you believe that it is transubstantiation, this is fine. The Orthodox Church will not dictate how you think of it, or imagine it, or define it. But you must believe that Christ is Present in the bread andthe wine, in order to be in line with Orthodox teaching. It is a mystery the Church does not attempt to define. If you find it helpful to think of it as 'transubstantiation', then this is okay with us as long as you don't insist everyone else think of it that way. As long as you believe that it is a Real Presence, you are inside the Church teaching."

Hope this helps!
That's what I thought! I was so surprised then to hear the priests at OCF say differently.
-Catherine

[Suzannah]

Hi cbrickell! :)
I'm glad this helps. What is OCF? I'm a new convert so am not familiar with all the different groups out there?

[Matrona]

OCF = Orthodox Christian Fellowship, a group that provides spiritual support for Orthodox college students and fellowship with other Orthodox students and those interested in Orthodoxy. There are OCF chapters on many college campuses, including mine, thank the Lord.

[isshinwhat]

I just want to say that I really appreciate my Orthodox brothers and sisters on here. It gives me hope that we will one day share in Eucharistic Communion what we already share spiritually.

May the Lord bless and guide us all!

Neal

[Amandine]

OCF rocks! Thank the Lord indeed! I have wonderful friends and fellowship there, and next year I'm moving into the brand-new Orthodox House (a private residence hall). It's going to be the first Orthodox Christian residence hall in America! (And rumor has it I'm in one of the most active OCFs in the nation ^_^)

Anyway, to answer Chanter way earlier, one priest is Greek Orthodox and is cradle orthodox, the other is Antiochian Orthodox and a convert.
-Catherine

[Suzannah]

I just want to say that I really appreciate my Orthodox brothers and sisters on here. It gives me hope that we will one day share in Eucharistic Communion what we already share spiritually.

May the Lord bless and guide us all!

Neal
Dear Neal,
Ditto! :) I love my Catholic brothers and sisters. My best friend is Catholic and I owe her a great debt of gratitude for my conversion to Orthodoxy. I too, look forward to one day being "one" ....
Love in Christ,
Your new friend,
Suzannah'