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

[~Anastasia~]

No, not really. The question I have is this: What does the bread and wine change into?

What do you want me to say? I think I've said it 50 times or more in this thread and the other.

The bread and wine/water become the Body of Blood of Christ.

 

[All4Christ]

Erose - do you believe it is the human flesh and blood of Jesus or the deified / glorified body (flesh and blood) of Jesus?

 

[Erose]

What do you want me to say? I think I've said it 50 times or more in this thread and the other.

The bread and wine/water become the Body of Blood of Christ.

And we call this transubstantiation.

 

[Erose]

Erose - do you believe it is the human flesh and blood of Jesus or the deified / glorified body (flesh and blood) of Jesus?

Are they not the same? Christ did not cease to be human when He was glorified, He is still a man even today.

 

[All4Christ]

Are they not the same? Christ did not cease to be human when He was glorified, He is still a man even today.

I agree that He didn't cease to be human, but His Body is glorified, deified, incorruptible, transformed, changed, etc.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maybe we are reaching a dead end, Erose. I think you are not seeing what we are trying to say.

I would not read St. Ambrose to say the Eucharist is "Body, Blood, Soul, and Dvinity". It says it is the Body and Blood of Christ, and acknowledges the spirit of Christ and that He is divine.

Go back to my earlier questions. What does that mean? You told me it meant that it is the Body and Blood of the Living Christ, not the dead one. Ok, good point. We say in some places that it is the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ (who we can agree is alive).

But what does "soul and divinity" mean? I don't even want to go down this path, but imagine Protestants of every stripe arguing over it. Perhaps because we receive Christ's soul, we partake of the divine nature? Ok, good, that's in Scripture, we know it's true. But perhaps some will say, partaking of Christ's soul means we merge into His soul somehow? Our spirits being subsumed into His? Or His into ours? Maybe some might think to consume Christ's divinity means that we literally become God in essence? And on and on. Imagine all the "reasonings" that can come of such wording? It's not a mountain out of a molehill.

This is why we don't do it.

We receive the true Body and Blood of Christ, and know that we do. That is what Christ gave us, what the Apostles gave us, what we received, what we proclaim, and what we pass down. NOTHING added, nothing subtracted.

St Ambrose On the Mysteries: 58. Wherefore, too, the Church, beholding so great grace, exhorts her sons and her friends to come together to the sacraments, saying: Eat, my friends, and drink and be inebriated, my brother. What we eat and what we drink the Holy Spirit has elsewhere made plain by the prophet, saying, Taste and see that the Lord is good, blessed is the man that hopes in Him. In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type: Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink, for the Body of God is a spiritual body; the Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ, as we read: The Spirit before our face is Christ the Lord. And in the Epistle of Peter we read: Christ died for us. Lastly, that food strengthens our heart, and that drink makes glad the heart of man, as the prophet has recorded.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Cat Lect 22: 3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4 .

Same here.


I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here, because like I wrote somewhere else, nearly every word has more than one meaning depending on how it is used and by whom. Definitions are extremely important, and that is why these things are taught.

Jesus Christ has a human soul (because He is a man) and a divine spirit (because He is God). Since Christ is alive, then we receive Him fully in the Eucharist. Him, not dead flesh and blood.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And we call this transubstantiation.

And if that is ALL that is taught/believed about the Eucharist, then we would agree.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was seriously asking, is "soul and divinity" explained fully in the Catholic Catechism? I'd be surprised if it isn't. If nothing else, it's a very thorough document. I'd be very interested to read it. I hear the song on EWTN nearly every time I turn on the car radio. I REALLY like the "have mercy on us and on the whole world" part, but I've been wondering what "soul and divinity" exactly mean.

Thank you.

 

[Erose]

I'm not sure that this is the case. I won't pretend to speak for our friend OrthodoxyUSA or any EO poster here, but is it not at least possible that both or either may affirmed, all without recourse to the doctrine of transubstantiation? Again, you've been presented with liturgical texts from my (OO) tradition, and now more recently posts from All4Christ on this page providing patristic backing that says that it is the Body and Blood, by the direct action of the Holy Spirit. How much more conclusive can you get? We all agree (you too) that this is what happens -- the difference is that the RCC has dogmatized what the OO and EO treat as a mystery.

Hum, so the issue then is that we dogmatized a mystery? Is not the Trinity a mystery as well, and the Church as a whole, including your tradition dogmatized this mystery. Why? because of necessity in dealing with heretics, which is what the Fathers of Trent were doing as well.

You are focusing on your particularly RC explanation of how this happens, whereas that's not a part of the equation for the people you are talking to. So, since that's not a part of the equation, maybe some believe that it might happen this way, whereas others believe something else. The key point is that all believe in it, and nobody oversteps the boundaries of what they have been given in doing so.

The doctrine does not speak about how this happens, except by the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of transubstantiation only speaks about what we believe, i.e. that before the consecration we have mundane bread and wine, and after consecration we have the Body and Blood of Christ. That is it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Or, again, it does and what is acceptable within your tradition to speculate on can make it possible to say either, depending on how exactly you mean it.

So are you saying that in your faith tradition, one can believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, or not?

Then a question you could be asking yourself is what it means to 'become something else.'

Is it not at least reasonable to say that Christ did not become other than what and Who He is by His taking flesh from the Theotokos? In my own tradition's liturgical prayers, we affirm this explicitly ("Amen, amen, amen...I believe, I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath that this is the life-giving flesh that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary; He made it one with His divinity, without mingling, without, confusion, and without alteration"), which means that I cannot agree with what you have written as some kind of a priori philosophical principle.

We also remember here that Jesus due to the Incarnation has two natures, not just one. Are you saying then that the Eucharist possesses two natures?

This is, I would hope you would understand, not a rejection of the use of the mind in any of this, but a proper understanding of what we can and what we cannot say in any definitive way regarding what happens by the Holy Spirit in our liturgies.

I am still under the impression that you are going off what you think that transubstantiation means, and not of what it says.

 

[Erose]

I agree that He didn't cease to be human, but His Body is glorified, deified, incorruptible, transformed, changed, etc.

Okay, not sure in all honesty where we are going with this. I think we can both agree that in the mystery of the Eucharist, that we really have no idea how Christ offers His flesh and blood to us. I don't think this could be answered anyway, there just isn't anything within the Deposit of Faith, that could help us answer this question.

 

[Erose]

I was seriously asking, is "soul and divinity" explained fully in the Catholic Catechism? I'd be surprised if it isn't. If nothing else, it's a very thorough document. I'd be very interested to read it. I hear the song on EWTN nearly every time I turn on the car radio. I REALLY like the "have mercy on us and on the whole world" part, but I've been wondering what "soul and divinity" exactly mean.

Thank you.

The soul refers Christ's human spirit and divinity refers to Christ Divine Spirit. In other words when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving the Incarnation of Christ. Him fully, not partially.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The soul refers Christ's human spirit and divinity refers to Christ Divine Spirit. In other words when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving the Incarnation of Christ. Him fully, not partially.

Well .... I'm not sure given the discussion just now between you and A4C. We might have a more fundamental difference then, but we are getting to the point I'd prefer to double-check with a priest on my understanding.

We would say that we receive the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The soul refers Christ's human spirit and divinity refers to Christ Divine Spirit. In other words when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving the Incarnation of Christ. Him fully, not partially.

So does this mean it's NOT in the Catechism? I am surprised, actually. Thank you for the reply.

 

[Erose]

And if that is ALL that is taught/believed about the Eucharist, then we would agree.

That is it in all honesty. Again substance means what something IS, not what it is made of which is according to Aristotelian metaphysics is an accident of what something IS. Ie. my substance is my humanity, not my flesh and blood. So when we say that the change is substantial, we are claiming that the bread and wine IS what is before the consecration and the Flesh and Blood of Christ IS what is after the consecration. This is it.

 

[Erose]

Well .... I'm not sure given the discussion just now between you and A4C. We might have a more fundamental difference then, but we are getting to the point I'd prefer to double-check with a priest on my understanding.

We would say that we receive the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ.

We also say the same. There is a reason why we worship the Eucharist, and if we didn't believe that Jesus in all His glory wasn't there, then we would be idolaters.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That is it in all honesty. Again substance means what something IS, not what it is made of which is according to Aristotelian metaphysics is an accident of what something IS. Ie. my substance is my humanity, not my flesh and blood. So when we say that the change is substantial, we are claiming that the bread and wine IS what is before the consecration and the Flesh and Blood of Christ IS what is after the consecration. This is it.

But ... there really is a reason that we don't talk about substance and accidents, differences or sameness of species (to my knowledge), or soul/divinity.



Perhaps it might be closer to say that we might agree on a core doctrine of the Eucharist, but we really cannot affirm what you might be considering auxiliary doctrines. I don't know. And remember, I'm just a few-years convert and this is most certainly not a major concern of mine.

I'm trying to hear what you are saying, and put it with what we say, and that's as close as I can come between us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We also say the same. There is a reason why we worship the Eucharist, and if we didn't believe that Jesus in all His glory wasn't there, then we would be idolaters.

You're bringing up another of those things we don't do, but best to leave it at that, I think.

 

[Erose]

So does this mean it's NOT in the Catechism? I am surprised, actually. Thank you for the reply.

I'm not sure if it is or isn't. Its been some time since I read this section. Divinity for Catholics is always God. Soul would be the only word in question, and quite honestly "soul" is just not a word used when referring to God for whatever reason. Human soul is a given, just never really heard of God being referred to as Divine Soul; albeit soul and spirit would be considered synonyms, in modern terms, just don't think so classically.

Anyway I have not met any Catholics that were confused by what is meant by soul and divinity when it comes to the Eucharist.

 

[Erose]

But ... there really is a reason that we don't talk about substance and accidents, differences or sameness of species (to my knowledge), or soul/divinity.

I think so to. I think though that it is primarily due to that type of terminology is not something used in Orthodoxy. There is no doubt that the discovery of Aristotle in the West, affected the language used, including theological language, in the West. I'm not sure what the reasons for the rejection (if that is the correct word to use here) in the East of Aristotle, but it seems that he didn't have as much of an impact in the East as he has had in the West. It does seem that the East, still holds on primarily to Neoplatonism, which I'm not saying is wrong or any of the sort. Just different.

Perhaps it might be closer to say that we might agree on a core doctrine of the Eucharist, but we really cannot affirm what you might be considering auxiliary doctrines. I don't know. And remember, I'm just a few-years convert and this is most certainly not a major concern of mine.

Transubstantiation isn't an auxiliary doctrine for us, but the core doctrine. You can't have the Real Presence of Christ, if the bread and wine do not BECOME the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. If that makes sense.

I'm trying to hear what you are saying, and put it with what we say, and that's as close as I can come between us.

That is all that can be asked, some understanding from both sides. IMO I think that from discussion here, I do think that transubstantiation is a shared belief, but one that the East doesn't feel the need to name, because it hasn't had to it seems due to heresy. I would imagine that there was some rejection of the term "Trinity" when it was first used, until due to heresy a term was needed to differentiate orthodoxy from heresy.

 

[Erose]

You're bringing up another of those things we don't do, but best to leave it at that, I think.

I was wondering about that. In your tradition you don't worship the Eucharist?