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

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

I have found Rome changed to unleavened in the 7th century.

Click to expand...

Yes. Most sources say 6th to 8th.

prodromos said:

Yes. Most sources say 6th to 8th.

Click to expand...

I have read that the Armenians were the first to use unleavened bread.

@Erose In your opinion, do you believe in transubstantiation describe the material transformation, the reality of the transformation or both?

Does it describe the manner of the transformation? or does the philosophy around it describe the manner?

Do you distinguish between substance and essence?

I believe that there is an issue on the table that few have responded to.

I believe it was asked whether the faith of the worshipper was a required for the sacrament, indeed to determine whether the bread and water become body and blood. I believe that one responder was the faith of the recipient was required, otherwise the transformation will not take place.

Hmm

Let us consider the question of whether children should be able to receive. I understand that canonically some denominations will say now. However, theoretically, I don't think that most traditional denominations have real problems with the concept. They certainly would if God's Grace were dependent on our faith, or our act of faith in receiving Christ.

My gut certainly tells me that God's Grace is dependent on God Alone. God's sacraments do not depend on the sanctity of the priest or the sanctity of the receiver. If this were not so, what does the warning from St Paul mean? Why would there be a huge problem of an unbeliever or a sinner receiving the Euscharist, if FOR HIM this would remain bread and wine?

I would not say that the presence of Christ is dependent on the faith of the recipient. I would say that the effectiveness of that presence to the recipient is dependent on matters within the recipient.

So the body and blood are truly present. But not everyone who receives, receives the effects of that within themselves.

If that makes sense?

Paidiske said:

I would not say that the presence of Christ is dependent on the faith of the recipient. I would say that the effectiveness of that presence to the recipient is dependent on matters within the recipient.

So the body and blood are truly present. But not everyone who receives, receives the effects of that within themselves.

If that makes sense?

Click to expand...

Yes, this makes sense. I guess I am comfortable with different effects on different people. I have a couple of observations.

First, this suggests that the Holy Spirit cannot use the Eucharist to confer Grace on an unworthy should or an unbeliever. Catholics don't allow Protestants to receive, however Anglicans are very open in this regard. The reasoning is that Grace should be up to God, not man-made rules. So, for me, it would seem that we shouldn't be limiting God's Grace.

Second, I believe that St Paul taught that there is a terrible effect for those who unworthily receive the body and blood. This suggests that the unworthy are receiving something different that bread and wine. I suppose from your contract, these people would be receiving DIFFERENT effects. This is reasoning that some Catholics give for not allowing non-Catholics to receive, they are protecting the would-be recipients. As I said above, it seems that they are attempting to limit opportunities for God's Grace.

So, my bottom line always errs in letting God be God, and in accepting his sacraments as mysteries.

Erose said:

Truth is bitter, and they who preach it are filled with bitterness. For with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth the Lord's passover is kept, and it is eaten with bitter herbs. (St. Jerome Against Jovinianus II: 37)

Click to expand...

it is interesting to me that he is talking about the actual Passover (bitter herbs).

Erose said:

In all honesty, that is how your post came off.

Click to expand...

Alright...that's really unhelpfully vague, but okay.

It is in answer to why we need to define terms used so that one can understand what is being said.

Click to expand...

Where did I ever write that you should use terms without defining them? Again, this is addressing something I never wrote.

My point above being, that we DO as well, your tradition is not the only ones that DO.

Click to expand...

Which, again, I never wrote that it was. I know that RCism isn't only about defining things; the point was (again) that in response to the kind of thinking that says that without this kind of definition the Arians (or whoever) would've still been strong because they had the best explanation (somehow...), we can say, no, that is not the case, because the truth lies in what is confirmed in the holy Orthodox Church of God, by its prayers.

All of our holy fathers who did fight against the Arians, whether it be men like HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic in the East or St. Hilary in the West, did nothing but proclaim what the Church already taught, and refused to bend on it in the face of a particularly popular heresy. So it's really not comparable to the situation which apparently arose in the West that led to the promulgation of the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, which -- if I am reading posts like those of Paidiske correctly -- appears to have been entirely based on speculation which led people astray in various matters: "What would happen if XYZ hypothetical situation were to occur?" This is not how the Church has traditionally defined things, and it still isn't.

Again, what can be said in speculative/non-dogmatic terms (in Greek terms, theologoumena) is a lot different than what must be affirmed. From an Orthodox perspective, it seems like various forms of Western Christianity have at least historically done away with this distinction, such that there's a lot of "solving" "problems" (in scare quotes because neither of these are true) that just don't exist for others because the speculation that made them seem so necessary or problematic never existed in the first place outside of a Western context. This is also why we don't see things like the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory in the Orthodox East, except quite late and when brought by Westerners into those societies (as is the case for instance in Tewahedo Orthodox Ethiopia, where interaction with the Portuguese following the wars against Ahmed Gragn in the 16th century led to the spread of some RC ideas and even the brief establishment of RCism as the kingdom's religion under Emperor Susenyos I, from 1622 to 1632). These are imported problems and imported solutions that certainly may make sense in a Western context, but don't need to be there in an Eastern one. We were totally fine before the RCC defined transubstantiation as such, and remain totally fine to this day precisely because do not entertain this kind of 'development of understanding' or whatever you'd call it.

Concerning your first point: If this is your argument that our "over-definitions" are thoroughly unnecessary, what does that truly mean?

Click to expand...

It means that they're unnecessary. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this point. They are answers to things that are unique to your own tradition, and do not necessarily have any bearing on others' (i.e., if we have questions come up about the reality of the Eucharist in our Church, we will answer them with reference to our own prayers, liturgies, fathers, and traditions -- not by saying "Well, this is what the Pope of Rome says" or "this is what the Roman Catholic Church has said", because that doesn't matter, and the circumstances which led them to that particular answer are not likely be directly comparable to ours, since we are after all different churches and traditions).

Would this mean that the "fleshed out" definition of the Trinity by the Nicene Fathers is thoroughly unnecessary, seeing that many of those actually living out the faith, don't share these beliefs and are not impoverished as a result? What about any of the Christian doctrines for that matter?

Click to expand...

No, that's not what any of this means. I don't know why you are going down this road. Do you understand that you cannot simply substitute one definition for another and treat them as though they are equal, simply because they are both definitions? So what our fathers have given us in the first three councils are what we affirm in my own communion, and whatever is outside of that belongs to someone else -- Nestorians (first two councils only), Eastern Orthodox (first seven councils), Roman Catholic (20+ councils), etc. You would never think to ask an Eastern Orthodox person "Does your not accepting Trent mean that you do not accept Nicaea?", would you? I wouldn't think so, because presumably you can recognize that even though they are both councils, they are very much not the same in terms of their contexts, participants, or contexts. So it's a ridiculous question on its face. So is what you've just asked me, for exactly the same reason.

Concerning your second point: Do you really believe that Catholics are the only ones who do this?

Click to expand...

I think that this is somewhat unique to -- if not Roman Catholics in particular -- then certainly to the Greco-Roman churches who accepted Chalcedon, yes.

So as to not be accused of slander for putting it this way (or to make it an argument about Chalcedon itself, which this isn't; the process by which the Eastern churches which accepted Chalcedon came to resemble the Constantinopolitan church more so than the incompletely Hellenized indigenous churches of the East is a long one, which it would not help the present discussion to go into), I offer the following example of the phenomenon that I am talking about (I have used it before, and it seems to be relatively easily understood, so my apologies to anyone who has read my ranting on this point before ):

One of the things that distinguishes the Eastern Orthodox Church from my own Oriental Orthodox Church is the supposed 'addition' by non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch Peter the Fuller to the Trisagion hymn of the clause "Who wast crucified for us", so that its interpretation is Christological, and it reads: "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal Who wast crucified for us, have mercy upon us". This is the tradition at Alexandria, as testified to (e.g.) in the ancient burial hymn "Golgotha", which has a verse about how this prayer came into the Church: The righteous Joseph and Nicodemus came took away the body of Christ, wrapped it in linen cloths with spices, and put it in a sepulcher and praised Him saying, "Holy God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us."

This is apparently not exactly the same as the tradition of the Syriacs (I can't remember the details of their tradition, but it is similar to this), but nevertheless it is testified to in both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian accounts of ancient Syria and the practice of the Church there (in Zacharias of Mitylene and Ephrem of Amida, respectively) that the inclusion of the phrase "thou Who wast crucified for us" is a part of the common tradition of all of the people of that country, irrespective of their status vis-a-vis Chalcedon (note: both were writing after Chalcedon). The practice in fact dates back to Patriarch Eustathius of Antioch (325-330). (See concerning this The Maronites in History by Iraqi historian Matti Moosa, which has the references to Zacharias' and Ephrem's writings.)

Be this as it may, this is most definitely not the tradition concerning this hymn as it was received at Constantinople (which if memory serves me has something to do with an earthquake and a miracle that happened surrounding that...), which is why there were riots when the phrase was introduced there, since it was foreign to what they had received. This is recorded even in non-Chalcedonian sources, such as Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre's Chronicle (a.k.a. the Chronicle of Zuqnin).

So even though there is not a simple "this is the original and all else is wrong" kind of narrative that can be found in all of this (Pat. Eustathius, it should be noted, was Patriarch of Antioch before the establishment of Constantinople itself in 330, so we can certainly tell which tradition is younger, though I suppose it is possible that of Constantinople could've been inherited from elsewhere), there are still some among the Eastern Orthodox who treat the Constantinopolitan tradition as being the Orthodox tradition in toto, rather than the tradition of a particular area, or a particular church (read: "this is what the Orthodox do", and not usually "this is what the Orthodox in Constantinople do").

So that is an example of how this mentality manifests itself among some people of the Chalcedonian confession. (I should stress here that I have talked to EO who are totally fine with all this information, but also others who protest that this can't possibly be the case because XYZ, and when presented with their own patriarch Ephrem of Amida's writings on Syria essentially say "So what? He's not a saint, and saints like John of Damascus [or whoever] wrote against it, so it's wrong." Eh...okay then, bye. )

Among Roman Catholics in particular, even among their leadership who presumably should know better than to make such sweeping statements, we find things like this:

"And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner--this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine"

(From the Papal definition fo the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)

This is quite simply wrong. It is not at all the case that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is very forcibly testified to in both the Eastern and Western Church of antiquity. No. There is no doubt a reading of this or that thing that is found in the ancient fathers which Roman Catholics in particular would read as 'evidence' for the antiquity of this doctrine, but that's not the same as the doctrine itself any more than the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist by all traditional Christians thereby means that we all believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Every single Christian who believes in what their denomination teaches, does the exact same thing. If you believe what your Church teaches you is the Truth, then any belief proposed that is counter to that is...yes it is deficient.

Click to expand...

Again, no. That's not actually the case. You don't need to find others deficient for not having the same explanations for things as you do. I have written above on the example of the Trisagion to show precisely how it is that different traditions may develop among different peoples or in different places, such that it is wrong to assume "Well, this is how we do it (in Alexandria, in Rome, in Antioch, in wherever), so this is how everyone does it/should do it." Your tradition is yours, mine is mine, another person's is another person's. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be in conflict with each other, though they might be (e.g., I don't personally care as a Coptic person that the EO have this tradition concerning the Trisagion, and I don't know any OO who do because we mostly don't know or care about them in this particular way, but apparently some of them very much care that we have our own traditions that don't match theirs, because they are ignorant or in some cases intolerant of anything that does not match what they do in Constantinople, or on Mt. Athos, or wherever).

They will almost always result in conflict when dealing with ignorant people who take their traditions to be the center of the dang universe, and refuse to acknowledge that there is anything else that has its own reasons for being. This is why I very much disagree with your idea that this is something that everyone does. No. Chalcedonian imperialists do this. That's not everyone (that's not even all Chalcedonians, in the same way that not every non-Chalcedonian doesn't care what the Chalcedonians do just because most remain ignorant of the customs the churches of Greece, Russia, Rome, Spain, etc). Not everyone has that mindset, and you don't need to have that mindset in order to believe in what your own church teaches. You can leave others alone, for instance. Or you can say "They're wrong, but they still have this tradition that at least explains how they got to be the way they are, such that what they are doing makes sense in its own context."

You don't have to pretend that there is more uniformity in Christianity than there actually is, or that there needs to be because blahblahblah Rome, or blahblahblah Constantinople, or blahblahblah Alexandria, or whatever.

Com'on, folks!

Yes transubstantiation goes a little bit further than "True Presence", because saying that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, can mean quite a few things

Click to expand...

That was my point in appealing to the prayers of the Church. Because if someone else may come up with something else that a practice or term means, but it doesn't match what we have received, then no, it can't mean that. The measure of what means what is what the Church proclaims it to mean -- not through speculation and having a bunch of really smart theologians around to tackle that, but through consistent and faithful witness to the faith of our masters the apostles and their children the fathers, from whom we have received what we now proclaim. This is why we have different churches (or different communions) organized around certain crucial differences found among people. What it means to be a Christian is quite simply not the same in a Roman Catholic context as it is in an Eastern Orthodox context, or in an Oriental Orthodox context. That's why these aren't all the same communion -- because we really don't live the same lives, in an ontological sense, as Christians.

I think I linked to it in an earlier post, so I won't do so again, but if you have a chance, please read the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's address given in 1997 under the title Phos Hilaron. His Holiness offers a perspective that I think Roman Catholics could benefit from considering, particularly on the question of what it means to be Christian or to be the Church.

Transubstantiation takes Jesus at His word when He said "This is MY BODY; This is MY BLOOD".

Click to expand...

So does...not-transubstantiation.

I'm confused then, why ridicule the usage of philosophical terminology being used then?

Click to expand...

Because that's not what's actually being objected to. What's being objected to as far as I can see is the philosophical development away from accepting the mystery as a mystery, which is what Transubstantiation seems to be an example of to Orthodox people. That you do not simply say "This is my body" and "This is my blood", but instead "the accidents do this, while the substance is this, and this means this, and this means this, etc., etc." (or whatever) is what makes the appeal that you have made concerning transubstantiation safeguarding the belief in the real presence fall flat, in this context. Because that's clearly not the kind of thing that is found in the ancient prayers of the Church. It is speculation not so much divorced from the reality of the real presence, but adding new things to be believed in particularly this terminology, which is itself foreign to what was accepted in the Church up to that point.

Basically, Aristotle is not a Christian saint, but the figures from whom Christianity gets the core anaphoras which we use (St. Basil, St. Cyril/St. Mark, St. Gregory, St. John Chrysostom, etc.) are. Hence the prayers of the Church are paramount and contain everything we must believe and confess. The much later Roman Catholic tradition concerning how this happens, or what it means that it happens or would happen (e.g., the "what if a mouse ate a crumb" hypothetical), are quite simply something else.

Well, glad that isn't what is being discussed here, as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not a movement away from the Deposit of Faith

Click to expand...

Yes it is. I know that you disagree, but by virtue of addressing this thread to Orthodox people, there is nothing wrong in this context with stating things plainly: it is transparently obvious to anyone who studies the faith outside of a purely Roman Catholic/Western lens (so, even Roman Catholics themselves, should they study the liturgies and prayers of other peoples) that this is something that is unique to the West, and not part of a shared deposit of faith. It is a development, and for plenty of the people you are asking concerning their own traditions, a development away from the common faith.

it is using reason to understand more fully what the Deposit of Faith is saying. Something the Church has been doing for 2000 years.

Click to expand...

It is using reason to come up with something that nobody ever stated in many hundreds of years across all Christianity, and then claiming that this is what the Church has believed in every place since forever. That is not what the Church in any place has been doing for 2000 years.

I continue to be confused why then do Orthodox feel the need then to scold Catholics when they use reason though.

Click to expand...

Again, the problem is not that you are using reason, full stop. The problem is that the use of reason in the Roman Catholic Church is in some cases untethered by the respect for mystery and boundaries that is found among the people you are actually asking about differences.

Erose said:

I continue to be confused why then do Orthodox feel the need then to scold Catholics when they use reason though.

Click to expand...

Because scholasticism used in opposition to Holy Tradition, is an incorrect use of scripture. Ex. Matt 16:18.

Forgive me...

I've been meaning to get back and reply in here. Forgive me, busy week. And the other thread got closed, and I'd wanted to reply as well.

Hopefully tonight. I just can't do it justice in 5-minute bites on a phone ...

Just a quick comment .... it matters not that "we guys" didn't come up with it.

What matters to us is what the ECFs came up with.

That really isn't meant to be offensive. It has just been our primary focus. Though honestly, it would seem to be a way in which Catholicism has diverged, from our point of view.

I would understand if your view is different.

Erose said:

So what I'm getting is that since you guys didn't come up with it, then it's wrong. Is that pretty much it?

Tell me do you believe that the bread and wine BECOMES the Body and Blood of our Savior?

When you look upon the Eucharist do you see what looks like flesh and blood or does He still look like bread and wine? What about when you consume the Eucharist? Does He taste like flesh and blood or like bread and wine?

If you claim that the bread and wine BECOMES the Flesh and Blood of Christ, and if you see and taste bread and wine while receiving the Eucharist, then whether you like it or not you believe in transubstantiation.

Click to expand...

Nothing physically changes. Only mystically changed.

Forgive me...