Eucharist & the "Real Presence"

[michaeldimmickjr]

I was wondering if you believe in the "Real Presence" when taking communion or if it is as the protestants view it as "symbolic." Thanks again for the interesting conversations!


Your Brother in Christ,

Michael

 

[Orthosdoxa]

John 6 makes it clear. Within the Church, Christ's once for all sacrifice is made present to us once again. So yes, it is literal.

Seeing it as only symbolic is a very new development in Christian doctrine, one not heard of until the last 5 centuries or so.

 

[gtsecc]

Only maybe 20% of Christians see it symbolically.

RCC, Anglican, and Orthodox make up about 75% to 80% of all Christians in the world and hold that Christ is really present in the Eucharist.

 

[Rilian]

RCC, Anglican, and Orthodox make up about 75% to 80% of all Christians in the world and hold that Christ is really present in the Eucharist.

gtsecc, unfortunately for Anglicans (and I speak from experience), that is not uniformly true.

Typically Michael you won't hear the term "real presence" used in Orthodoxy. When referring to communion we mean one thing, it is the true body and blood of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

And lutherans (LCMS and WELS).... though it seems that increasingly many of them are not properly or thouroughly educated on this.

 

[gtsecc]

gtsecc, unfortunately for Anglicans (and I speak from experience), that is not uniformly true.

Wow, that is a Real Problem. Without getting too far off the subject, I just want to say that while maybe some don't believe it, the official Anglican position is we believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist. My point is not to promulgate Anglican doctrine though, it is to let the OP know that if you add up all confessions - Lutheran, Anglican, RCC, and Orthodox you get 80% of all Christians or more, and while they might use different language they all hold that Christ is present in the Eucharist and that it is not symbolic.

 

[Rilian]

I think if you ask many Anglicans and Lutherans though, you will find they believe in consubstantiation or something very near to it. That is not the belief we hold, and it's why I personally don't use or find very useful the term "real presence". We don't believe Christ is simply present in the elements, the elements are changed in their entirety to the true body and blood of Christ. That's why I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Rilian... why is it illogical to believe that the Eucharist is fully the body and blood of Christ while still believing that it holds onto its original properties of bread and wine?

 

[Rilian]

Rilian... why is it illogical to believe that the Eucharist is fully the body and blood of Christ while still believing that it holds onto its original properties of bread and wine?

What would you call adoration or veneration of the unconsecrated elements? The answer is in the answer to that question.

 

[Maximus]

Wow, that is a Real Problem. Without getting too far off the subject, I just want to say that while maybe some don't believe it, the official Anglican position is we believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist. My point is not to promulgate Anglican doctrine though, it is to let the OP know that if you add up all confessions - Lutheran, Anglican, RCC, and Orthodox you get 80% of all Christians or more, and while they might use different language they all hold that Christ is present in the Eucharist and that it is not symbolic.

As I recall from reading the 39 Articles some years ago, the Anglican idea was to create a "big tent" that allowed for diversity in Christian doctrine. Thus one finds high and low church Anglicans and those in between, "broad church" Anglicans, etc.

It seems to me the same holds true with the Eucharist. There are Anglicans who hold the Orthodox doctrine, and there are Anglicans who do not.

If there has been an official Anglican endorsement of the Orthodox doctrine, perhaps you could post it.

 

[Maximus]

Rilian... why is it illogical to believe that the Eucharist is fully the body and blood of Christ while still believing that it holds onto its original properties of bread and wine?

What would you call adoration or veneration of the unconsecrated elements? The answer is in the answer to that question.

That is an excellent answer, Rilian.

Beyond that, the Orthodox Church has, on numerous occasions, and in a number of councils and confessions of faith, made it clear that we believe in the complete change of the eucharistic elements (bread and wine) into the true Body and Blood of Christ.

That is why we can say the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and nothing less.

The Eucharist is not a mere symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist is not a mere "spiritual presence" in bread and wine. It is not bread + wine + Christ.

The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

who said anything about unconcecrated?

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The Eucharist is not a mere symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist is not a mere "spiritual presence" in bread and wine. It is not bread + wine + Christ.

please state what you mean when you say "symbol". I am sure you are well aware of the vast difference in meaning between the theological meaning of the term and the modern vulgar meaning of the term.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

​

Eucharist Terminology: Transubstantiation
"Transubstantiation" is a term coined by the scholastic theological tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Owing to the contacts with the West, Orthodoxy sometimes picked up on such terminology and used it to express the Orthodox understanding of what the Holy Trinity does during the DIvine LIturgy to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. This was especially true of the Kyivan Baroque period where St Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kyiv, tended to use borrowed western phraseology in his Catechism and elsewhere. This is why Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko used the term "Transubstantiation." Ohienko was a great scholar of Orthodox history and antiquity and was well acquainted with the theological terminology of the Baroque period.

Transubstantiation is weak terminology because of its rationalist underpinnings. Transustantiation says that the "substance" of the bread and wine are changed, but that the "accidents" i.e. the physical appearance of the bread and wine remain. There is already a problem here with separating, in theoria, the substance and the accidents, or, to put it another way, to began talking about the two as separate entities. There is a real pit-fall in that when we talk about the accidents, the physical qualities of bread that remain after the Eucharistic Change occurs, there is the seemingly unavoidable suggestion made that the bread itself remains. How else can we identify the bread if not through its qualities? And if the qualities remain unchanged, then the substance of bread must somehow also remain -- now we are really in deep trouble and have fallen into the heresy of "consubstantiation" the idea that the Body and Blood of Christ "co-exist" with the bread and the wine. Martin Luther believed in consubstantiation as a possible explanation, but he didn't condemn transubstantiation either which is why either position is acceptable in Lutheranism today. I think that there is a sense in which transubstantiation leads one into consubstantiation which is why "transmutation" is a better term, as Fr. Brygidyr, speaking from within the best traditions of Orthodoxy, states.

Transmutation doesn't get us into the unnecessary and rationalistic positions of neatly defined categories etc. such as accidents and substance. It simply posits that the reality of the bread and wine is changed after the last "Amen" is said following the Epiclesis and the Eucharistic Canon. It doesn't get into the "how" of the change. It is, unfortunately, very typical of the Western scholastic tradition to want to know "how" such as, for example, "how does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and remain distinct from the Son who is Only-Begotten?" The "Filioque" was therefore a rationalistic - and unscriptural - way of responding to this rationalistic question. This has led to all kinds of problems in the Roman Catholic church which it has yet to overcome, even with the Second Vatican Council (some would say "especially with").

​

​

While this is by no means authorative, nor does it really work to support (at least not directly) my position that one can believe the body and blood are truly present while acknowledging that in some way the bread and wine are still there, I still think it makes a good point. We may have used the same terminolody in these councils maximus has rightly made reference to time and time again, but I would have to question the idea that we understand them in the same way as the people we borrowed the terms from. At least I hope we don't. The western dissection of the Eucharist is ridiculous at best. I won't go as far as to say that it is dangerous for it doesn't seem to put the belief in Real Presence in peril, and to me that is what is most importnat. But I'm sorry, I just don't see how it is necessary or helpful to deny that the Eucharist shares the exact saame physical qualities of bread and wine. For all practical purposes, the bread and wine are still some how present. How does this negate or compromise the complete presnece of our Lord and Saviour's Body and Blood? It's a mystery... we're going to turn this into a Math problem?​

​

John​

​

PS: the above quote is from http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/terminology.htm​

I do not sanction this website as a good or bad Orthodox website. i know nothing of it. I posted it merely because Alex Roman (the author) made a good, logical point that I had a hard time putting into words. I do not claim that his actual historical or theological knowledge is strong or reputable for knmow nothing of him, and even in this very quote he misrepresents the Lutheran stance that Transubstantiation is alright with Lutherans. This is not true, at least not as a whole, be that ridiculous or not and regardless of what concessions Luther made with those reformers who still held strong onto Transubstantiation.​

​

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, teaches that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. (Although the four-syllable word "metabole"/"metavole" may be loosely said to be "Greek Orthodox for 'transubstantiation'", it actually means "change" or "alteration". Greek for "transubstantiation" — as in "an alteration specifically of the fundamental substance or essence" in the Roman Catholic sense — would be "metousiosis".) Orthodox theologians have tended to refrain from philosophical reflections such as those of the Medieval Scholastics. Rather, they prefer to refer to the Eucharist as a "mystery", with the full understanding beyond human comprehension, which is also an expression used freely among Catholics. [1] Most Orthodox theologians would prefer to say too little about the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than say too much and possibly deviate from the truth.

I suppose I just think that this is a far safer way to go about it. i can completely understand why many are hesitant to take on the word "consubstantiation" because of the western, platonic, lutheran baggage it carries that, apparently (and I'll just take their word for it for the sake of argument), undermines the real presence. But I think we should be also apprehensive about taking on the concept of Transubstation and getting into ideas of elements and accidents and whatever else. I would have to say I go by this statement above and seems to be the most historically-safe statement regarding the how we as Orthodox must view the Eucharist. If one finds comfort in the Western explanation of how this happens at the aristotelian level, then sobeit, but please don't force it on me.

But, through these conversations, I realize that I do need to do more research into what the true Lutheran understanding is. I suppose it is very possible that I was taught wrong in my old Church, believing that the Eucharist is truly and really the body and blood of Christ. i don't mean that tongue and cheek, I really mean that... maybe my Lutheran Church emphasised to much the real presence and veered away from actual Lutheran teaching on the matter. (I've kind of given up looking at what Luther has to say on the matter... I don't know of another less consistant historical figure).

John

 

[Rilian]

I do not sanction this website as a good or bad Orthodox website. i know nothing of it. I posted it merely because Alex Roman (the author) made a good, logical point that I had a hard time putting into words.

What's most curious is even though the site says "Ukrainian Orthodoxy", the author in question is in fact a Ukrainian Catholic. He is in communion with the church that adheres to what he is criticizing. Aside from that though, I think his argument is somewhat off the mark. Transubstantiation is a word from Greek roots, all it means is the substance is changed. I don't see any reason why this term can't be used, because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the scholastic baggage Dr. Roman has a problem with.

This blog entry on Nicholas Cabasilas and the real presence I think sums up the issue succinctly and clearly. It's the blog of an Anglican priest as it just so happens.

 

[Rilian]

who said anything about unconcecrated?

It's the principle behind this.

 

[Marjorie]

What's most curious is even though the site says "Ukrainian Orthodoxy", the author in question is in fact a Ukrainian Catholic.

That site is written by an Eastern Catholic??? I did not know that at all...

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Rilian]

That site is written by an Eastern Catholic???

A substantial portion of it.

I did not know that at all...

Now you do.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

It looked like some faction to me. Don't know what it was... it just didn't seem on the up and up. I posted it merely because it put into words a little of what my problem is with taking on transubstatiation wholesale. In all reality, it is a western term. Sure, we can find its greek counterpart used, but that doesn't mean that it implies all that the Catholic Church means to imply when using the term transubstantiation.