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

[~Anastasia~]

I will say one thing though, Erose. And this is observation, not condemnation.

Do you see what you are doing? You search for proof that Orthodox go into all the details that you apparently accept from Catholicism. You don't seem to be able to accept the simplicity I have given you.

THAT is the major difference, IMO.

Have you ever seen someone try to write 100 pages explaining the Holy Trinity, as encapsulated in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed? It can't really be done without forging into something we don't or can't know, that can thus be error.

It is the same with the Eucharist. Along with the Holy Trinity, there are just some things we know, but a point where we must stop and embrace mystery beyond that.

But I will ask the priests.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I must first offer a correction to what I have posted, with my apologies. I suppose to make more sense I will post the conversation in order.

I said: "I have been told (1) the bread and wine (and water) are changed to the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord Jesus Christ through the power/action of the Holy Spirit. And (2) that in response to "Is it the Body and Blood? Is it bread and wine?" that the correct answer is simply "Yes" (to all). And (3) that beyond this is Mystery, and we say no more. (Other than what can be found in the prayers and Liturgy, such that it is for the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, that we should prepare, and so on.)"

The Abbot replied: "The bread and wine of the Eucharist are "CHANGED" into the True Body and Blood of Christ. Of course our senses still perceive bread and wine. We do not employ the RC metaphysical argument of transubstantiation but only profess there is a CHANGE by the power fo the Holy Spirt and that what was once merely bread and wine is now the very Body and Blood of Christ. So no, after the consecration we do not call the consecrated elements bread and wine but the Most Holy and Precious Body and Blood of Christ and leave it at that. It is a Holy Mystery that cannot be described beyond that."

I gratefully received the correction. (I wonder if he would take it the wrong way if I told him but - I love that man. He used to be rather harsh and stern toward me in the beginning, but he has always faithfully corrected me and explained whatever I asked, and I will always be thankful for him in that.)

Anyway, I myself was a little concerned when you said that you were worried about Orthodox theology I think over the point of saying "yes" to all. Technically it is true in a sense, since we perceive it as bread and wine, but the Abbot is right that we never call it that. So I won't use that to explain anymore. I think divorced from the context in which I received it, it implied something I wasn't fully appreciating in my attempts to distill our beliefs. I apologize for misleading in this.


As to the rest of the Abbot's reply, I'm not quite sure what he meant about the metaphysical part that we do not share. He is very gracious to help my understanding and correct me when I ask for it, but I don't think he has time for delving into the kinds of things we do here, such that he would be concerned to explain a theology we don't share to me.

You learn that certain things you can ask an Abbot, and certain things you don't press.

But I suspect that is where your answer is?

 

[prodromos]

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.

Are you happy for us to use Keenan's Catechism as authoritative Catholic teaching regarding the Papacy?

 

[All4Christ]

I must first offer a correction to what I have posted, with my apologies. I suppose to make more sense I will post the conversation in order.

I said: "I have been told (1) the bread and wine (and water) are changed to the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord Jesus Christ through the power/action of the Holy Spirit. And (2) that in response to "Is it the Body and Blood? Is it bread and wine?" that the correct answer is simply "Yes" (to all). And (3) that beyond this is Mystery, and we say no more. (Other than what can be found in the prayers and Liturgy, such that it is for the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, that we should prepare, and so on.)"

The Abbot replied: "The bread and wine of the Eucharist are "CHANGED" into the True Body and Blood of Christ. Of course our senses still perceive bread and wine. We do not employ the RC metaphysical argument of transubstantiation but only profess there is a CHANGE by the power fo the Holy Spirt and that what was once merely bread and wine is now the very Body and Blood of Christ. So no, after the consecration we do not call the consecrated elements bread and wine but the Most Holy and Precious Body and Blood of Christ and leave it at that. It is a Holy Mystery that cannot be described beyond that."

I gratefully received the correction. (I wonder if he would take it the wrong way if I told him but - I love that man. He used to be rather harsh and stern toward me in the beginning, but he has always faithfully corrected me and explained whatever I asked, and I will always be thankful for him in that.)

Anyway, I myself was a little concerned when you said that you were worried about Orthodox theology I think over the point of saying "yes" to all. Technically it is true in a sense, since we perceive it as bread and wine, but the Abbot is right that we never call it that. So I won't use that to explain anymore. I think divorced from the context in which I received it, it implied something I wasn't fully appreciating in my attempts to distill our beliefs. I apologize for misleading in this.


As to the rest of the Abbot's reply, I'm not quite sure what he meant about the metaphysical part that we do not share. He is very gracious to help my understanding and correct me when I ask for it, but I don't think he has time for delving into the kinds of things we do here, such that he would be concerned to explain a theology we don't share to me.

You learn that certain things you can ask an Abbot, and certain things you don't press.

But I suspect that is where your answer is?

FTR, the abbot's comments match what I've been taught as well. It's a very good explanation

 

[~Anastasia~]

FTR, the abbot's comments match what I've been taught as well. It's a very good explanation

I can always trust what he says.

And that was my understanding, and I shouldn't have repeated the "yes" to all answer without qualification. I appreciate, always, those extra voices to let me know how I'm coming across. Without the context (and I'm seeing more and more how I missed that) I really did say something I didn't mean to say. I can handle the embarrassment lol, but I sure hope I haven't confused or misled anyone anywhere. I think I have repeated it only on CF. i hope.

 

[Erose]

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.

Look, I provided the links to the page that I got this from. I didn't pull this info out of some ambiguous source, and not provide the ability for those who are interested to fact check me.

This catechism comes from the Russian Orthodox, and it seems that the website that I pulled it from is a Russian Orthodox website. So maybe Greek Orthodox don't believe in Catechisms but it sure looks like the Russians at least at one point or another thought that they were nice to have.

I don't know what the authority of this catechism possesses. I don't know how this all works in the East.

I don't know maybe the Russians, have a clearer understanding on the matter, than the Greeks.

 

[Erose]

I will say one thing though, Erose. And this is observation, not condemnation.

Do you see what you are doing? You search for proof that Orthodox go into all the details that you apparently accept from Catholicism. You don't seem to be able to accept the simplicity I have given you.

Actually no I'm not doing nothing of the sort. What I have garnered here on this thread, and forgive me for pointing this out, is that from three different Orthodox brethren, I have received three different answers to the question. So I did what I should have done in the beginning, and went out to find documents discussing the subject from an Orthodox perspective, so that I can understand what is believed.

But it seems that even with these Orthodox documents, at least one Orthodox brethren doesn't accept them as teaching Orthodox doctrine, so who do I trust here?

All4Christ has been explaining is what the Orthodox church teaches. I haven't come across any documents yet, that teach either consubstantiation or the Calvinistic view of the Eucharist.

Have you ever seen someone try to write 100 pages explaining the Holy Trinity, as encapsulated in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed? It can't really be done without forging into something we don't or can't know, that can thus be error.

But there are quite a few Saints in the Early Church Fathers that have gone into much detail about the Holy Trinity and have done their best to explain all that they know on the subject.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Look, I provided the links to the page that I got this from. I didn't pull this info out of some ambiguous source, and not provide the ability for those who are interested to fact check me.

This catechism comes from the Russian Orthodox, and it seems that the website that I pulled it from is a Russian Orthodox website. So maybe Greek Orthodox don't believe in Catechisms but it sure looks like the Russians at least at one point or another thought that they were nice to have.

I don't know what the authority of this catechism possesses. I don't know how this all works in the East.

I don't know maybe the Russians, have a clearer understanding on the matter, than the Greeks.

On this thread, I don't see the great differences you have been told by other Orthodox Christians.
Even what you quoted says much the same, although they seem to be trying to use or explain what transubstantiation "would" mean from an Orthodoxy perspective. We find it best not to engage the word at all, lest others believe that it's our word.

Forgive me...

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would refer you to the Abbot I quoted above.

And another priest adds this, which might be helpful.
"Transubstantiation is a particular model which describes the change of the Gifts. We Orthodox generally don't use that term to describe the change, though in the past some Orthodox--especially Russians have. The Greek term usually used to describe the change is metabole. We Orthodox believe the Gifts have been changed but we do not have a codified philosophy to describe that change. Fr Dmitru Staniloe offers a marvelous image to describe the change that does not try to define the Mystery too far but does express the Mystery in a way that is better graspable."

Before I got into waters too deep for myself, I should have asked for help. I apologize for not doing so. You might understand that it is possible to ask three Catholics to explain a doctrine and get slightly differently nuanced replies. Whether that relates to their particular understanding, the kinds of focus they themselves have in interacting with others, and so on. I would ask the same charity from you.

One of the key values of this forum (Traditional Theology) is not to tell others what they believe. We do that because it really is easy to misunderstand someone with a different perspective, and that is increased when we all try to frame it to suit your understanding. But I think we are all trying to tell you that we believe the same thing. I get the impression from you (forgive me if I'm wrong) ... but you seem to want us either to agree with Catholic teaching, or to believe that we don't agree with one another. I'm not sure why that is.

But I think we (Orthodox) all believe the same thing about the Eucharist. I prefer not to compare/contrast it with the Catholic understanding, but the priests and Abbot I have heard from so far tell me that metaphysically we don't explain the Mystery.

I will see if I can find the teaching they commended to me. There has been further discussion as well, but these I have shared seem the most applicable.

I hope that helps.

 

[Erose]

On this thread, I don't see the great differences you have been told by other Orthodox Christians.

I disagree. What I have seen expressed by different Orthodox christians has been basically the Catholic Position, another expressed consubstantiation, and if I remember correctly your position is in line with the teachings of Calvin, that that Jesus is only spiritually present in the Eucharist. Those are significant differences.

Even what you quoted says much the same, although they seem to be trying to use or explain what transubstantiation "would" mean from an Orthodoxy perspective. We find it best not to engage the word at all, lest others believe that it's our word.

Forgive me...

Honestly I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. Just want clarity, which just isn't happening from an Orthodox perspective with those who I am discussing the matter with.

If Orthodoxy believes in consubstantiation, then fine, that is all I want to know. If Orthodoxy believe that Christ is just spiritually present in the Eucharist then okay. If Orthodoxy teaches transubstantiation, but doesn't like the word for whatever reason, great. It is your beliefs that I'm asking about. I know mine and they aren't going to change, because you believe something else.

When I have gone to "Orthodox" websites looking for that clarity, I have found nothing that would contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church. When I have asked here what is different, I get pretty much standard answers such as we don't like that you attempted to explain the "how" or that you guys go too far in explaining the matter. But I haven't seen anyone explain why these are the case.

Here is my point on the matter. I'm not absolutely sure what Orthodoxy believes, and that may not change after this thread. What I am absolutely sure of is that what Catholicism and what the Early Church Fathers taught, is exactly the same, in this I am completely confident in.

 

[Erose]

I must first offer a correction to what I have posted, with my apologies. I suppose to make more sense I will post the conversation in order.

I said: "I have been told (1) the bread and wine (and water) are changed to the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord Jesus Christ through the power/action of the Holy Spirit. And (2) that in response to "Is it the Body and Blood? Is it bread and wine?" that the correct answer is simply "Yes" (to all). And (3) that beyond this is Mystery, and we say no more. (Other than what can be found in the prayers and Liturgy, such that it is for the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, that we should prepare, and so on.)"

The Abbot replied: "The bread and wine of the Eucharist are "CHANGED" into the True Body and Blood of Christ. Of course our senses still perceive bread and wine. We do not employ the RC metaphysical argument of transubstantiation but only profess there is a CHANGE by the power fo the Holy Spirt and that what was once merely bread and wine is now the very Body and Blood of Christ. So no, after the consecration we do not call the consecrated elements bread and wine but the Most Holy and Precious Body and Blood of Christ and leave it at that. It is a Holy Mystery that cannot be described beyond that."

I gratefully received the correction. (I wonder if he would take it the wrong way if I told him but - I love that man. He used to be rather harsh and stern toward me in the beginning, but he has always faithfully corrected me and explained whatever I asked, and I will always be thankful for him in that.)

Anyway, I myself was a little concerned when you said that you were worried about Orthodox theology I think over the point of saying "yes" to all. Technically it is true in a sense, since we perceive it as bread and wine, but the Abbot is right that we never call it that. So I won't use that to explain anymore. I think divorced from the context in which I received it, it implied something I wasn't fully appreciating in my attempts to distill our beliefs. I apologize for misleading in this.


As to the rest of the Abbot's reply, I'm not quite sure what he meant about the metaphysical part that we do not share. He is very gracious to help my understanding and correct me when I ask for it, but I don't think he has time for delving into the kinds of things we do here, such that he would be concerned to explain a theology we don't share to me.

You learn that certain things you can ask an Abbot, and certain things you don't press.

But I suspect that is where your answer is?

Okay so the answer given by the Abbot is what we call transubstantiation. And no it isn't an argument; it is a term used to refer to what we believe in one single word. Much like we use terms such as the "Trinity" and "Incarnation". Both terms were invented by the Church to refer to what we believe.

Here is the thing I'm getting. Orthodox believes that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, which is what we call transubstantiation; but do not want to accept the Latin term for it. Am I wrong in this assessment?

 

[Erose]

On this thread, I don't see the great differences you have been told by other Orthodox Christians.
Even what you quoted says much the same, although they seem to be trying to use or explain what transubstantiation "would" mean from an Orthodoxy perspective. We find it best not to engage the word at all, lest others believe that it's our word.

Forgive me...

Okay now this is making more sense. The issue seems to be not in the definition of what transubstantiation means, albeit the term "essence" is preferred over the term "substance"; but rather it isn't an Orthodox word. So the word is not accepted by Orthodoxy.

 

[Erose]

And another priest adds this, which might be helpful.
"Transubstantiation is a particular model which describes the change of the Gifts. We Orthodox generally don't use that term to describe the change, though in the past some Orthodox--especially Russians have. The Greek term usually used to describe the change is metabole. We Orthodox believe the Gifts have been changed but we do not have a codified philosophy to describe that change. Fr Dmitru Staniloe offers a marvelous image to describe the change that does not try to define the Mystery too far but does express the Mystery in a way that is better graspable."

I'm curious about what is meant by a codified philosophy. It really seems to me, again I'm sorry for overemphasizing this, that the issues the East has over this doctrine in the West isn't what transubstantiation is, but what they think it is.

Before I got into waters too deep for myself, I should have asked for help. I apologize for not doing so. You might understand that it is possible to ask three Catholics to explain a doctrine and get slightly differently nuanced replies. Whether that relates to their particular understanding, the kinds of focus they themselves have in interacting with others, and so on. I would ask the same charity from you.

Here is the difference though. You may ask three Catholics to explain a doctrine; but at the end of the day it is easy to fact check them. You don't even have to hunt for obscure texts to do so. Just go to our Catechism for the answer.

One of the key values of this forum (Traditional Theology) is not to tell others what they believe. We do that because it really is easy to misunderstand someone with a different perspective, and that is increased when we all try to frame it to suit your understanding. But I think we are all trying to tell you that we believe the same thing.

Look in no way have I attempted to tell you what you believe. If I have come across in that way then I apologize. Again, as I have stated before, I'm not sure what you believe, so if I'm not sure what you believe, then how can I tell you what you believe? I'm not trying to be contrary on this matter, and I apologize for seeming to be that way; but I also hope that this is forcing you to learn a little bit more about your faith. I know that I have from this conversation a much better grasp of the Catholic teachings on the Eucharist.

I get the impression from you (forgive me if I'm wrong) ... but you seem to want us either to agree with Catholic teaching, or to believe that we don't agree with one another. I'm not sure why that is.

All I am looking for is some clarity on the matter.

But I think we (Orthodox) all believe the same thing about the Eucharist. I prefer not to compare/contrast it with the Catholic understanding, but the priests and Abbot I have heard from so far tell me that metaphysically we don't explain the Mystery.

Okay. Do you think that those ECFs who did metaphysically explain the Mystery were wrong or in error? Since it seems that Orthodoxy thinks it is wrong for the Catholic Church to define the Mystery, it would seem likely that Orthodoxy would condemn the ECFs for doing the same thing correct?

I hope that helps.

Again I apologize for seeming to be contrary on this, but I'm really getting substantially different answers from different Orthodox sources, and I'm just trying to understand.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Dwelling on these points is wrong. It serves no liturgical purpose. It doe not enhance prayer life.

Missing the forest for the trees. Trying to understand a mystery that was left intentionally as mystery.

I have a feeling the Abbot would say; Return to your prayers.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Okay now this is making more sense. The issue seems to be not in the definition of what transubstantiation means, albeit the term "essence" is preferred over the term "substance"; but rather it isn't an Orthodox word. So the word is not accepted by Orthodoxy.

Words are important to theology.

Is the body and blood of Christ there when we partake? Yes! I don't know how. The term most often used by Orthodox Christians is "mystically changed". Did I say spiritual? I may have, it is certainly true as well.

Since the theology of transubstantiation and physical change is something that divides, we say leave it as mystery.

Why try to circumscribe an un-circumscribeable subject?

The Liturgy uses the word "IS" and that is all that is important. HIS words, and the Apostles repeat them, echoing the entire service.

If we don't believe that to be "real" then we have missed what we are communing with, and could rightly be called non-believers.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Do you think that those ECFs who did metaphysically explain the Mystery were wrong or in error? Since it seems that Orthodoxy thinks it is wrong for the Catholic Church to define the Mystery, it would seem likely that Orthodoxy would condemn the ECFs for doing the same thing correct?

This may also be true for us, we are not bound to call them perfect. Many an ECF has been wrong about many things. Many crossed several lines they should not have. King David and Moses did too.

Forgive me...

 

[~Anastasia~]

Dwelling on these points is wrong. It serves no liturgical purpose. It doe not enhance prayer life.

Missing the forest for the trees. Trying to understand a mystery that was left intentionally as mystery.

I have a feeling the Abbot would say; Return to your prayers.

Forgive me...

Yes, the Abbot would have stern words for me at some point, as would my SF. I have already gotten them from some laity, lol, but I know why I have many of the discussions I have on here.

 

[~Anastasia~]

ok .... some Orthodox Churches use the word "transubstantiation". It is not the word we object to. It is that we are concerned with being misunderstood to have other things attached that we do not have.

What we believe is not hard to find. Read the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It is all in there.

We believe that the bread and wine (and water) are changed into the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

THAT is what we believe about what the Eucharist is. To expand on or explain the Eucharist itself beyond this, we do not do. Because it is a Mystery. You can decide if you agree with that or not. Would you accept your Catechism with everything else relating to those points removed?

Practice includes such things as proper preparation to receive it, that the priest prays that it is "for the remission of sins and life everlasting" as we receive it, and that we use leavened bread for very specific theological reasons. I know that we differ on some of these.

That's the bottom line. I don't think me saying it again is going to make it any more clear. If All4Christ, or OrthodoxyUSA, or any other Orthodox Christian believes anything different about what the Eucharist IS ... I would invite them to say so. But I don't think you will ever hear that (unless someone is purposely opposing the Church).

But this really has gone far beyond being edified. I'm not sure what the problem is. Do all Orthodox believe the same thing - yes, we do, if we are following the Church, and that is part of being Orthodox. Do Catholics agree? I don't know. I've told you how to tell ... would you accept that one sentence in blue above, with the statement that anything further we do not speculate, because it is a Mystery, as your entire Eucharistic theology? If anything is added, to that degree, we differ.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I am not sure why this isn't being resolved? I stepped back in because you took away from it that between three different Orthodox Christians, we had three different beliefs, and that isn't right. For my part, I tried to be helpful by expanding and explaining, and in so doing, perhaps I went against what we say in that it is a Mystery. May God forgive me, and I ask your forgiveness as well.

 

[Erose]

Dwelling on these points is wrong. It serves no liturgical purpose. It doe not enhance prayer life.

Missing the forest for the trees. Trying to understand a mystery that was left intentionally as mystery.

I have a feeling the Abbot would say; Return to your prayers.

Forgive me...

So are you saying then that when the Fathers of the Church clarified and defined the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and Incarnation were wrong in doing so? When the Fathers of the Church who did dwelling on the Mysteries and what they meant, where they wrong in doing so as well?

 

[Erose]

Since the theology of transubstantiation and physical change is something that divides, we say leave it as mystery.

Who said anything about a physical change? That isn't in the doctrine of transubstantiation.