The Eucharist: True differences between Catholics and Orthodox???

[Erose]

Thank you for clarifying It didn't seem like something you would typically imply - but I apparently didn't read it correctly.

FTR, I appreciate this conversation...it's been helpful for understanding.

These are the types of conversations that should be the norm here in these forums, not bashing each other's beliefs but trying to understand each other; but also pushing each other to learn more about our own faiths so that we can answer these questions correctly. I think this is all we can ask for.

 

[dzheremi]

@OrthodoxyUSA and @All4Christ -

Erose understands the three of us to have expressed different beliefs about the Eucharist.

I have not asked either of you explicitly, so perhaps we can clarify here. It was my thought that were all replying to Erose trying to make our beliefs understood, and just addressing different nuances.

So ... Can we perhaps discuss?

@dzheremi - I invite you as well. Unless something in our different Christologies affects the Eucharist, I would imagine that you would affirm our theology of the Eucharist, and we yours as well?

It is not entirely clear to me what I am being invited to participate in here. You want a private discussion regarding the Eucharist between the EO members and me, so that we can all get on the same page and not confuse Erose, it sounds like? I thought we all already were, except perhaps with regard to some statements about whether it's 'changed' or not, which I didn't feel it appropriate to participate in, since that was a discussion involving two EO members, and I obviously cannot say what should be the standard of belief in another's communion.

But you would know if you affirm the Oriental Orthodox theology of the Eucharist by now, I hope, if you have read the liturgical prayers I have shared in this thread. And of course I see nothing amiss in any of the prayers that have been posted by the EO in this thread (side discussions are just that, and I would not evaluate your theology based on those).

So sure, count me in, if I'm understanding what you're offering.

 

[dzheremi]

Eucharistic Adoration as a devotion, is just that a devotion that developed over the centuries, and is one way that a parish can develop greater devotion inside herself. Not all parishes have this devotion, sadly mine does not, except occasionally, and primarily after Holy Thursday's services. The benefits of the devotion have been enormous to some, as spending an hour with the Lord in prayer would benefit anyone who takes it seriously. Many parishes have what is called Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, in which the attempt to have someone from the parish adoring the Eucharist, 24-7, usually in one hour segments. The parishes that I have talked to who have taken on the devotion, have claimed that it has helped grow and strengthen their parishes overall. Of course all of this is personal experience, and would be difficult, as in most things when it comes to faith to prove without a doubt.

Like I said it is a devotion that just grew over the centuries, similar to how other devotions have grown, such as the Rosary, Liturgy of the Hours, etc., etc. It is just one of many tools that people of faith
have at hand to help them grow spiritually.

Thank you for this explanation, Erose. Do you know of any resources that discuss the development of Eucharistic Adoration in the Roman Catholic tradition? I would like to read about that if possible. Thank you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It is not entirely clear to me what I am being invited to participate in here. You want a private discussion regarding the Eucharist between the EO members and me, so that we can all get on the same page and not confuse Erose, it sounds like? I thought we all already were, except perhaps with regard to some statements about whether it's 'changed' or not, which I didn't feel it appropriate to participate in, since that was a discussion involving two EO members, and I obviously cannot say what should be the standard of belief in another's communion.

But you would know if you affirm the Oriental Orthodox theology of the Eucharist by now, I hope, if you have read the liturgical prayers I have shared in this thread. And of course I see nothing amiss in any of the prayers that have been posted by the EO in this thread (side discussions are just that, and I would not evaluate your theology based on those).

So sure, count me in, if I'm understanding what you're offering.

Well, I was just adding yours for good measure, because unless I missed or misunderstood something, I think I would agree with everything you posted about the Eucharist.

I was trying to clear up what seems to be lingering confusion, namely this:

In the Eucharist thread, among three different Orthodox Christians there were three different understandings of the Eucharist. One was more in line with what we teach, except didn't like using the term "substance" but preferred "essence". Anothers understanding was close to consubstantiation, and another was closer to Calvinistic belief of the Eucharist. In all honesty those are three very distinct differences that would be very difficult to reconcile.

Since Erose is mostly comparing myself, @All4Christ, and @OrthodoxyUSA, I was mostly interested to clarify, in this thread, whether we in fact disagree.

At times I thought of things another would say, but since they said it, I did not. I was considering the three of us working together to explain a single doctrine, not each of us explaining a different doctrine.

But somehow it seems from Erose's comment that has still led to confusion.

If you have nothing more to say, that's fine too.

 

[All4Christ]

Ultimately, I believe that the Eucharist was mundane bread and wine before the Eucharistic prayers. After the prayers are completed, we partake of the true Body and Blood of Christ, changed by the Holy Spirit. I don't know what exact manner the change occurs. I just know the reality.

"I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief. And I believe that this is Thy pure Body and Thy own precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee, have mercy on me and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And grant that I may partake of Thy Holy Mysteries without condemnation, for the remission of sins and for life eternal. Amen."

 

[All4Christ]

I'll add another quote from St John of Damascus - who absolutely agreed with the Real Presence:

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

ETA: Here is a link to the entire writing for the context of the quote

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Unsearchable! Put that in my pocket.

Forgive me...

 

[~Anastasia~]

Agreed and agreed. And there is nothing more to add except that as we have said otherwise, it is the body and blood of the RISEN Christ that we receive.

I think all else was an effort to meet questions. But these few posts are all there is, and I think we all agree?

 

[All4Christ]

Agreed and agreed. And there is nothing more to add except that as we have said otherwise, it is the body and blood of the RISEN Christ that we receive.

I think all else was an effort to meet questions. But these few posts are all there is, and I think we all agree?

There are other things about the grace we receive through the Eucharist, remission of sins, healing of soul and body, etc.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are other things about the grace we receive through the Eucharist, remission of sins, healing of soul and body, etc.

Really it's in the words the priest says, the prayers we pray. And we all receive the same words, pray the same prayers. You're right of course.

 

[All4Christ]

Really it's in the words the priest says, the prayers we pray. And we all receive the same words, pray the same prayers.

Exactly

 

[Erose]

Thank you for this explanation, Erose. Do you know of any resources that discuss the development of Eucharistic Adoration in the Roman Catholic tradition? I would like to read about that if possible. Thank you.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a pretty good article on the practice: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Perpetual Adoration

 

[dzheremi]

Ah. Thank you, Erose. It would appear at the source that this is admitted to be nothing more than conjecture, as far as any claim to being an ancient or patristic practice is concerned. From the link:

No trace of the existence of any such extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church. Christian Lupus, indeed, argues that in the days of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine it was customary for the neophytes to adore, for eight days following their baptism, the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but no sound proof is adduced. It first appears in the later Middle Ages, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It certainly may be conjectured that such adoration was really connoted by the fact of reservation in the early Church, especially in view of the evident desire to have the Eucharist represent the unity and continuity of the Church, as it is unlikely that there should not be some continuation of the adoration evidently given to the Host at the Synaxis. But such conjecture cannot be insisted upon"

Out of curiosity, I looked up this Christian Lupus person and found that he died in the late 17th century, so there's apparently really nothing to his claim that this dates back to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (as is made clear from the quoted paragraph anyway), as it's not as though he is writing as one of their contemporaries or demonstrating an unbroken line regarding this practice from them down to us, since there isn't one.

 

[Erose]

Ah. Thank you, Erose. It would appear at the source that this is admitted to be nothing more than conjecture, as far as any claim to being an ancient or patristic practice is concerned. From the link:

No trace of the existence of any such extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church. Christian Lupus, indeed, argues that in the days of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine it was customary for the neophytes to adore, for eight days following their baptism, the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but no sound proof is adduced. It first appears in the later Middle Ages, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It certainly may be conjectured that such adoration was really connoted by the fact of reservation in the early Church, especially in view of the evident desire to have the Eucharist represent the unity and continuity of the Church, as it is unlikely that there should not be some continuation of the adoration evidently given to the Host at the Synaxis. But such conjecture cannot be insisted upon"

Out of curiosity, I looked up this Christian Lupus person and found that he died in the late 17th century, so there's apparently really nothing to his claim that this dates back to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (as is made clear from the quoted paragraph anyway), as it's not as though he is writing as one of their contemporaries or demonstrating an unbroken line regarding this practice from them down to us, since there isn't one.

I don't think any argument can be made that this devotional practice is older than a 1000 years in the West. From all accounts it is a devotion that evolved out of Medieval piety, much like the Rosary for example.

 

[Erose]

Okay, been doing research on what exactly to Orthodox believe on the matter, and I came across some Orthodox Catechisms that talk about the subject:

From the Catechism of St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow
338. What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy?

The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament: Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered.

339. Why is this so essential?

Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation T

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church • Pravoslavieto.com

Here is another one from the Confession of Dositheus:

Decree 17
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

[*Ed. Note: GK: prothesis, "setting forth," in Orthodox churches the liturgical act of preparing the bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy or Eucharist.]

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: The Greek term latria refers to the highest form of adoration or worship and is directed only to God, as opposed to dulia, "veneration" of the saints, and hyperdulia, "highest veneration" of Mary.]

Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes* for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different from it; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: Pixes: a container in which the consecrated bread for Communion is placed so that it can be taken to those who cannot leave home.]

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics. But necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress, the Catholic Church of Christ rejects and anathematises.
The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

Neither of these nor what I read in the Orthodox Faith on the oca.org website or posting on the Eucharist on the Orthodox Wiki site, have anything in them IMO that conflict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So in all honesty I'm still at a loss on what is the difference between Catholic and Orthodox understanding on the Eucharist. I'm beginning to think there really isn't any, except we defined the fact as dogma, where the Orthodox churches have not done so. Even in this I'm not sure what the issue would be, as I think, correct me if I'm wrong, this teaching cannot change in the Orthodox Church any more than it can in the Catholic Church.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Okay, been doing research on what exactly to Orthodox believe on the matter, and I came across some Orthodox Catechisms that talk about the subject:

From the Catechism of St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow
338. What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy?

The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament: Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered.

339. Why is this so essential?

Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation T

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church • Pravoslavieto.com

Here is another one from the Confession of Dositheus:

Decree 17
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

[*Ed. Note: GK: prothesis, "setting forth," in Orthodox churches the liturgical act of preparing the bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy or Eucharist.]

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: The Greek term latria refers to the highest form of adoration or worship and is directed only to God, as opposed to dulia, "veneration" of the saints, and hyperdulia, "highest veneration" of Mary.]

Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes* for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different from it; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: Pixes: a container in which the consecrated bread for Communion is placed so that it can be taken to those who cannot leave home.]

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics. But necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress, the Catholic Church of Christ rejects and anathematises.
The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

Neither of these nor what I read in the Orthodox Faith on the oca.org website or posting on the Eucharist on the Orthodox Wiki site, have anything in them IMO that conflict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So in all honesty I'm still at a loss on what is the difference between Catholic and Orthodox understanding on the Eucharist. I'm beginning to think there really isn't any, except we defined the fact as dogma, where the Orthodox churches have not done so. Even in this I'm not sure what the issue would be, as I think, correct me if I'm wrong, this teaching cannot change in the Orthodox Church any more than it can in the Catholic Church.

It seems you have found someone teaching Orthodoxy from a Catholic stand point. As you likely know, there is no set catechism in the Orthodox Church... yet here you have posted one. I take it from that alone, that this is, that person's opinion.

You said it's dogma in the Catholic Church. Then you are not free to deny it? We are not forced to believe any such thing.

For the Orthodox, "it is", because HE said "it is". We do not define more than was given.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

If you find a liturgy that does not contain the institutional narrative. IT's because the practice was illegal, not stated aloud by clergy and not written down.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Ah. Thank you, Erose. It would appear at the source that this is admitted to be nothing more than conjecture, as far as any claim to being an ancient or patristic practice is concerned. From the link:

No trace of the existence of any such extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church. Christian Lupus, indeed, argues that in the days of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine it was customary for the neophytes to adore, for eight days following their baptism, the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but no sound proof is adduced. It first appears in the later Middle Ages, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It certainly may be conjectured that such adoration was really connoted by the fact of reservation in the early Church, especially in view of the evident desire to have the Eucharist represent the unity and continuity of the Church, as it is unlikely that there should not be some continuation of the adoration evidently given to the Host at the Synaxis. But such conjecture cannot be insisted upon"

Out of curiosity, I looked up this Christian Lupus person and found that he died in the late 17th century, so there's apparently really nothing to his claim that this dates back to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (as is made clear from the quoted paragraph anyway), as it's not as though he is writing as one of their contemporaries or demonstrating an unbroken line regarding this practice from them down to us, since there isn't one.

Augustine also said it was okay to kill the heretics... so there you go.

Forgive me...

 

[~Anastasia~]

Who is Dositheos? I will look myself but I need to know exactly before I know the context in which to consider his words. I stopped reading when I did not find error, exactly, but ... something that I think Orthodoxy would not generally express. I thought you were posting a Catholic theologian for comparison in fact. But I stopped reading because I need that framework before I carefully consider what he says.

As to the St. Philaret, there is sometimes a somewhat western influence over some periods of Russian thought. I'd have to check more carefully. Again, not exactly error in this case, but just not how we would typically express. But not too far off ... maybe appropriate if dealing with particular heresies. I just need to know the context.

I would feel more comfortable getting input from priests before continuing. But I really am confident of what I've told you all along being appropriate for a layman's understanding. Bishops defending against heresies would of course likely have a more nuanced perspective.

Okay, been doing research on what exactly to Orthodox believe on the matter, and I came across some Orthodox Catechisms that talk about the subject:

From the Catechism of St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow
338. What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy?

The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament: Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered.

339. Why is this so essential?

Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation T

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church • Pravoslavieto.com

Here is another one from the Confession of Dositheus:

Decree 17
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

[*Ed. Note: GK: prothesis, "setting forth," in Orthodox churches the liturgical act of preparing the bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy or Eucharist.]

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: The Greek term latria refers to the highest form of adoration or worship and is directed only to God, as opposed to dulia, "veneration" of the saints, and hyperdulia, "highest veneration" of Mary.]

Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes* for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different from it; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: Pixes: a container in which the consecrated bread for Communion is placed so that it can be taken to those who cannot leave home.]

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics. But necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress, the Catholic Church of Christ rejects and anathematises.
The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

Neither of these nor what I read in the Orthodox Faith on the oca.org website or posting on the Eucharist on the Orthodox Wiki site, have anything in them IMO that conflict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So in all honesty I'm still at a loss on what is the difference between Catholic and Orthodox understanding on the Eucharist. I'm beginning to think there really isn't any, except we defined the fact as dogma, where the Orthodox churches have not done so. Even in this I'm not sure what the issue would be, as I think, correct me if I'm wrong, this teaching cannot change in the Orthodox Church any more than it can in the Catholic Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ok, I see. A synod called in 1672 to deal with spurious documents.

I have to be careful in getting to these things. I would prefer the input from someone well-versed in the history of the Church.

Quite simply, we (should) believe what we have from the beginning.

I have some sympathy for the fact that some Catholic development is due to the pressures of defending against later heresies. But I would not like to see Orthodoxy succumb to the same pressures. There really aren't any new heresies anyway ... pretty much everything I've ever seen has essentially been dealt with by the early Church.

But apparently this synod was particularly to refute a spurious document, which had to be done. Yet it does not form the foundation of our faith. To truly understand, I would need the spurious document, the full reply, and an understanding of the thought of the bishops involved and what the Church has said about it since ... which I am very unlikely to have that level of knowledge.

But let me ask my clergy and monastic friends.

Who is Dositheos? I will look myself but I need to know exactly before I know the context in which to consider his words. I stopped reading when I did not find error, exactly, but ... something that I think Orthodoxy would not generally express. I thought you were posting a Catholic theologian for comparison in fact. But I stopped reading because I need that framework before I carefully consider what he says.

As to the St. Philaret, there is sometimes a somewhat western influence over some periods of Russian thought. I'd have to check more carefully. Again, not exactly error in this case, but just not how we would typically express. But not too far off ... maybe appropriate if dealing with particular heresies. I just need to know the context.

I would feel more comfortable getting input from priests before continuing. But I really am confident of what I've told you all along being appropriate for a layman's understanding. Bishops defending against heresies would of course likely have a more nuanced perspective.