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

[Erose]

Something that popped up in a different thread, which I would like to see fleshed out. The question is: What are the true differences between Catholics and Orthodox concerning the Eucharist? This thread is an attempt to understand what those differences (if there truly are any) between the two Faith Traditions.

 

[Tigger45]

Leavened vs unleavened bread comes to mind first. It actually has theological implications beyond just historical accuracy.

 

[Erose]

Leavened vs unleavened bread comes to mind first. It actually has theological implications beyond just historical accuracy.

Actually the it is more accurate to say liturgical implications.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Leavened vs unleavened bread comes to mind first. It actually has theological implications beyond just historical accuracy.

Please elaborate on the theological implications.

 

[Goatee]

Didn't think there were any. Be interested to know the differences.

 

[FenderTL5]

Qs: Does the Catholic laity receive both the body and blood?
Or is it just the bread that's offered?
Isn't there an age requirement (children)?

I'm aware of the other thread and that your primary question has to do with the differences between Transubstantiation (RCC) and the Mystery as it is called in Orthodoxy. I don't know the RCC doctrine well enough to contrast them.

 

[tampasteve]

Qs: Does the Catholic laity receive both the body and blood?
Or is it just the bread that's offered?
Isn't there an age requirement (children)?

I'm aware of the other thread and that your primary question has to do with the differences between Transubstantiation (RCC) and the Mystery as it is called in Orthodoxy. I don't know the RCC doctrine well enough to contrast them.

Laity may take the body, blood, or just one or the other. I am not sure of a actual age requirement, but one needs to be baptized (infant or older) and confirmed, at the "age of reason" usually around 7 years old or so.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I want to be involved in this discussion, but I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough about either.

Forgive me if I get any of this wrong.

I do think leavened vs unleavened is important. We use leavened bread because it is the body of the RISEN Christ.

Infants not being communed has more to do with them not being in full communion yet?

It may also be that there is a difference in the way in which it is perceived. Is Catholic theology concerned with any re-sacrificing of Christ? Do you speak concerning the details of what the physical substance of the Eucharist is like?

We do speak of the bread and wine being our offering that we bring into the Church, and the Holy Spirit changes it to be the Eucharist for our benefit.

I know that we do not have Eucharistic adoration, though the Eucharist is treated with the utmost respect.

Really though ... trying to come up with these off the top of my head is no good. I would have forgotten leavened vs unleavened if it hadn't been mentioned by someone else (At least I wasn't thinking of it st the moment), and that's probably a major difference, since it was an issue dividing us early on.

I'd much rather see two priests who knew both discuss this.

 

[Haipule]

Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation vs......on and on and on.

I personally am very literal with God's Word yet, I do see Eucharist, Communion, Lords Supper as purely Liturgical.

 

[Tigger45]

Please elaborate on the theological implications.

Leaven thus represents the works of the people, which they offer to God with thanksgiving. While the Septuagint Greek text does not use the word eucharist to characterize this thanksgiving, there is clearly a thematic connection between this sacrifical thanksgiving and the one we make each Sunday.

On the other hand, the connection of unleavened bread to sacrifice shows the penitential attitude the people are expected to have towards the sacrifice and the remembrance that forgiveness is the Lord’s, rather than a work of their own.

Borrowed from Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread

 

[Tigger45]

Actually the it is more accurate to say liturgical implications.

Tell that to our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Actually the it is more accurate to say liturgical implications.

Tell that to our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Actually I did not reply, because I'm not sure what is meant.

But I think "theological" would be the correct term for us. It has meaning as pertains to Christ-God.

 

[Tigger45]

Actually I did not reply, because I'm not sure what is meant.

But I think "theological" would be the correct term for us. It has meaning as pertains to Christ-God.

Exactly. Liturgical practices are expressions of theology particularly when referencing the 'body'/bread of Christ.

 

[Erose]

In a liturgical context yes. Theological no. This was an error that even the west made at one point emphasizing the matter of the bread requiring leaven or not. This IMO is a form of phasiseeism.

The use of the leaven bread in the Byzantine liturgies has an important symbolic importance; the same goes with unleavened bread in the West. These should be honored and respected in both liturgical traditions.

Actually I did not reply, because I'm not sure what is meant.

But I think "theological" would be the correct term for us. It has meaning as pertains to Christ-God.

 

[Erose]

Exactly. Liturgical practices are expressions of theology particularly when referencing the 'body'/bread of Christ.

You're right that liturgical practices are expressions of something theological, they are not theology themselves. Everything a priest/deacon/etc says and does in the liturgy expresses a theological/historical concept.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In a liturgical context yes. Theological no. This was an error that even the west made at one point emphasizing the matter of the bread requiring leaven or not. This IMO is a form of phasiseeism.

The use of the leaven bread in the Byzantine liturgies has an important symbolic importance; the same goes with unleavened bread in the West. These should be honored and respected in both liturgical traditions.

Well, I know the symbolism behind what we do. As to "it should be respected" that's for the bishops to decide. As long as we are not in communion, it's a non-issue. (Not ours to judge outside ourselves, I mean.)

We have a western rite in Orthodoxy, though it's rare. I wonder if they use leavened bread?

 

[All4Christ]

Actually I did not reply, because I'm not sure what is meant.

But I think "theological" would be the correct term for us. It has meaning as pertains to Christ-God.

I agree. For example, the Western Rite Orthodox are required to use leavened bread due to theological meaning. Though it resembles the flat wafer, it is leavened.

The ancient question that continues to divide the Roman Catholic and Western Churches from the Orthodox Church regarding the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist had to be resolved when the Western Rite parishes were received into the Orthodox Church. The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he received these parishes into Orthodoxy. Interestingly, antidoron is also blessed and distributed at these Liturgies. Metropolitan Isaiah on the Western Rite

 

[All4Christ]

We have a western rite in Orthodoxy, though it's rare. I wonder if they use leavened bread?

We seem to be cross posting...see above!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Lol, thanks for the info! I had guessed that would be the case. Thank you, now I don't have to bother Fr. Seraphim to find out.

 

[All4Christ]

A priest cannot serve a Eucharistic Liturgy without others being present in the Orthodox Church. If I remember correctly- a priest can do that in the RCC...feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.