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

[Erose]

No offense is attempted here, so please I pray don't take it that way; but I do not believe that it was the way of the ancient Fathers to consider it wrong to question what things mean. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity would have never been fleshed out if it was wrong to question, for example. The Trinity is the greatest of all mysteries, and yet I believe with my whole heart that God wants us to delve into that mystery, within the framework of the Deposit of Faith, to learn as much about Him as we can possibly know. The ancient Fathers wrote treatise after treatise exploring the incredible truths Jesus has bestowed upon us. They even invented philosophical words in an attempt to describe the Trinity did they not? The term "Trinity" was developed to title our understanding of the Godhead. What about the terms "persona" or "hypostatic union" or "hypostasis"? These are terms that for all intents and purposes were invented or redefined in an attempt to describe something about the Godhead. Our understanding of the term "person" for all intents and purposes came from those discussions one what Jesus meant when He said certain things.

 

[All4Christ]

No offense is attempted here, so please I pray don't take it that way; but I do not believe that it was the way of the ancient Fathers to consider it wrong to question what things mean. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity would have never been fleshed out if it was wrong to question, for example. The Trinity is the greatest of all mysteries, and yet I believe with my whole heart that God wants us to delve into that mystery, within the framework of the Deposit of Faith, to learn as much about Him as we can possibly know. The ancient Fathers wrote treatise after treatise exploring the incredible truths Jesus has bestowed upon us. They even invented philosophical words in an attempt to describe the Trinity did they not? The term "Trinity" was developed to title our understanding of the Godhead. What about the terms "persona" or "hypostatic union" or "hypostasis"? These are terms that for all intents and purposes were invented or redefined in an attempt to describe something about the Godhead. Our understanding of the term "person" for all intents and purposes came from those discussions one what Jesus meant when He said certain things.

From the Orthodox perspective, we believe the early church defined beliefs more thoroughly when there was a heresy threatening the church. If there isn't something that is affecting a particular belief of the Church, then it isn't necessary to define it more. We believe that was the process the early church followed as well. Does that make sense?

 

[~Anastasia~]

No offense taken.

I agree with you that it is sometimes important and necessary.

My point of view would be to look to the Fathers. They worked out certain doctrines of the Holy Trinity, and we accept that.

But in the case of the Eucharist, they left us with the Holy Mysteries. So ... I am inclined to think the safest path is to accept what they have handed down and not presume that I can come up with something somehow better and more correct than they have given us. Speaking of the Apostles, and bishops in the early and direct line of Apostolic succession, and their consensus. I think that is an important part of the Orthodox mindset.

If we were being hit with internal heresy, perhaps a council would be in order, and it could be addressed. But that is not the case here and now.

 

[All4Christ]

If we were being hit with internal heresy, perhaps a council would be in order, and it could be addressed. But that is not the case here and now.

Exactly. Internal heresy or things that affect the Church significantly may necessitate a council to clarify the beliefs further or correct the heresy. Otherwise, there is no need.

It's the body and blood of Christ - no ifs, ands or buts about it. Exact details about it aren't necessary to understand the importance and grace that is conveyed through the sacrament. It is a mystery...a beautiful mystery, but a mystery all the same.

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

(Matthew 7:1)
That's why i rather don't judge what other people do , if they want to pray this way is ok but i won't do it because it reminds me of something bad personally. When priest give me to eat that bread or whatever it's called , and he says Body of Christ when he gives it to me i feel really bad , because we are the Body of Christ and he is the Head , so it's like we eat ourselfes .
(Deuteronomy 28:53)

 

[~Anastasia~]

(Matthew 7:1)
That's why i rather don't judge what other people do , if they want to pray this way is ok but i won't do it because it reminds me of something bad personally. When priest give me to eat that bread or whatever it's called , and he says Body of Christ when he gives it to me i feel really bad , because we are the Body of Christ and he is the Head , so it's like we eat ourselfes .
(Deuteronomy 28:53)

I can understand holding back when you don't understand, and your conscience makes you question if you are doing the right thing.

But we can learn what these things mean, so that we can move forward, with good conscience.

Remember, Christ Himself took the bread, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you."

We ARE the Body of Christ, but sometimes things have more than one meaning. Jesus wasn't giving His disciples us Christians to eat when He told them to eat His body. And we don't eat ourselves.

Keep seeking, and you can learn the meaning, and then be able to receive Communion. Because Christ told us to receive it.

God be with you.

 

[Erose]

From the Orthodox perspective, we believe the early church defined beliefs more thoroughly when there was a heresy threatening the church. If there isn't something that is affecting a particular belief of the Church, then it isn't necessary to define it more. We believe that was the process the early church followed as well. Does that make sense?

That has been the process here are well for the most part. Heresies are a great motivator to get you ducks in a roll. There have been a few exceptions to this, especially the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, as these were more of a demand by the people to push the popes to declare these as dogma. Oddly enough transubstantiation isn't one of those exceptions.

 

[Erose]

But in the case of the Eucharist, they left us with the Holy Mysteries. So ... I am inclined to think the safest path is to accept what they have handed down and not presume that I can come up with something somehow better and more correct than they have given us. Speaking of the Apostles, and bishops in the early and direct line of Apostolic succession, and their consensus. I think that is an important part of the Orthodox mindset.

If we were being hit with internal heresy, perhaps a council would be in order, and it could be addressed. But that is not the case here and now.

See that is the thing. Transubstantiation being declared dogma, was a result of defending the faith against heresy. Our Church also does not just declare doctrine for the heck of it. In fact just like your side, she would prefer not to. But heresy forces the hand of the Church and makes her look deeply into what she believes. This IMO is about the only thing positive that comes from heresy.

 

[Erose]

Exactly. Internal heresy or things that affect the Church significantly may necessitate a council to clarify the beliefs further or correct the heresy. Otherwise, there is no need.

It's the body and blood of Christ - no ifs, ands or buts about it. Exact details about it aren't necessary to understand the importance and grace that is conveyed through the sacrament. It is a mystery...a beautiful mystery, but a mystery all the same.

We don't claim that it isn't a mystery. Transubstantiation doesn't remove the fact that the Eucharist is a mystery.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have been told by someone before (it might have been @MoreCoffee who is gone now) that the Catholic development of many of her teachings was because her hand was forced. I'm sure the Protestant Reformation had a hand in that as well. I'm not unsympathetic.

However ... well, the truth is that we really have some things that are a bit irreconcilable as an understanding behind these things. And since the Roman decrees were not ecumenical, we have concerns there.

Actually, this gives me pause thinking about possible reconciliation. If there WERE to be a council, with equal votes for all bishops, as it was always done, and if Rome participated with Orthodoxy, and if everyone held to their own position, then Orthodoxy would be "outvoted" simply because Catholicism has spread so much by numbers. If bishops exist in numbers comparable to laity in each of us, we would simply be absorbed. This ... is not acceptable to Orthodoxy, as I'm sure you would imagine. I never thought forward on it before.

Of course Arius held sway at one point, and the majority was temporarily with him. But thankfully the Holy Spirit intervened.




I don't have an answer beyond what I've already given on the Eucharist. We still never really explored your OP as fully as it could be. We would have to know all of the Catholic teaching, and then get a knowledgeable Orthodox person to reply. But I suppose we have the basics, based on the knowledge of what we've discussed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We don't claim that it isn't a mystery. Transubstantiation doesn't remove the fact that the Eucharist is a mystery.

Well .... I'd feel better getting a priest's or bishops's answer. But I think by definition of "Mystery" for us, it does.

 

[All4Christ]

We don't claim that it isn't a mystery. Transubstantiation doesn't remove the fact that the Eucharist is a mystery.

Ok. I definitely see how it is still a mystery. It is however more defined than our view - and we just haven't needed to define it further.

Sometimes it seems like there were some heresies in the West than by nature of location didn't affect the East as much. (There likely are some heresies we faced than you didn't face as well.) Perhaps that contributes to it as well.

Our Church still has Orthodox beliefs about the Eucharist despite not defining the details further. Certainly some theologians promote more details, but Holy Tradition doesn't go into much more detail than saying that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, changed by the Holy Spirit. (There also is the dogma about the effect / grace conveyed by the Eucharist, and the related theology). Essentially it is captured in the portion of the Eucharistic liturgy I posted earlier.

Why is more needed to understand the Eucharist? If the simple faith of the people is that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, why do the underlying details matter (how it happens, whether there still are attributes of bread and wine, whether it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but is or is not mystically also bread and wine, etc). We have the witness of the Church Fathers, and of course, the teachings of Scripture. Why is more definition needed, if heresy is not encountered? Honest question; no offense intended.

 

[Erose]

Honest question; no offense intended.

None taken. This is a discussion, and so far a good one, in helping each to understand the other. In answering your questions I reorganized your post a little.

Why is more needed to understand the Eucharist?

I would say it is because it is human to want to understand.

If the simple faith of the people is that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, why do the underlying details matter

Because when heresies arise details begin to matter.

(how it happens,

This isn't something that the Church has commented on, except as we know from the Liturgy, through the Power of the Holy Spirit.

whether there still are attributes of bread and wine,

That part is obvious, I don't think anyone questions that part.

whether it is the Body and Blood of Christ,

That part is extremely important, which I think both agree.

but is or is not mystically also bread and wine, etc).

Because consubstantiation cannot be the answer. That just makes the Eucharist a mystical meatloaf.

We have the witness of the Church Fathers, and of course, the teachings of Scripture. Why is more definition needed, if heresy is not encountered?

Again, here in the West heresy was encountered, and you still see the heresy here today right? It is symbolic only; Jesus is present only spiritually; that the Body and Blood are over (and under) the bread and wine, etc.

Our Church still has Orthodox beliefs about the Eucharist despite not defining the details further. Certainly some theologians promote more details, but Holy Tradition doesn't go into much more detail than saying that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, changed by the Holy Spirit. (There also is the dogma about the effect / grace conveyed by the Eucharist, and the related theology). Essentially it is captured in the portion of the Eucharistic liturgy I posted earlier.

The key word here is 'changed'. What does that mean?

 

[Erose]

Well .... I'd feel better getting a priest's or bishops's answer. But I think by definition of "Mystery" for us, it does.

It can only be so, if one is ignorant of the doctrine itself.

 

[All4Christ]

That has been the process here are well for the most part. Heresies are a great motivator to get you ducks in a roll. There have been a few exceptions to this, especially the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, as these were more of a demand by the people to push the popes to declare these as dogma. Oddly enough transubstantiation isn't one of those exceptions.

Before transubstantiation was defined, did some people in the RCC start to move towards memorialism?

Did the heresies surrounding the Eucharist start to enter into the church, or were they external to the church?

 

[All4Christ]

None taken. This is a discussion, and so far a good one, in helping each to understand the other. In answering your questions I reorganized your post a little.

I would say it is because it is human to want to understand.

Yes, I understand. I have a tendency to want to know that. I do think it is more of a Western tendency though; perhaps a result of Scholasticism. Often, it is important in the Eastern church to stop trying to understand.

Because when heresies arise details begin to matter.

Agreed. That's when we can start to define it more if needed. As long as you maintain though that it is the true body and blood of Christ, the dogma is retained. If people or bishops in the church started to say it was just a symbol, then we would certainly need to correct them. It hasn't happened though for 2000 years (in the Church, not outside).

This isn't something that the Church has commented on, except as we know from the Liturgy, through the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Ok.

That part is obvious, I don't think anyone questions that part.

Again ok

That part is extremely important, which I think both agree.

Agreed 100%

Because consubstantiation cannot be the answer. That just makes the Eucharist a mystical meatloaf.

I disagree that this is a necessary conclusion. Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. He's not a "mixture" of part God, part man. There is a hypostatic union. For argument's sake, isn't it possible to have that here as well? Stating it is still bread and wine doesn't negate the ability for it to be changed 100% to the body and blood of Christ.

Again, here in the West heresy was encountered, and you still see the heresy here today right? It is symbolic only; Jesus is present only spiritually; that the Body and Blood are over (and under) the bread and wine, etc.

Heresy yes, but it is outside the church, not internal.

The key word here is 'changed'. What does that mean?

Honestly, it means it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Beyond that, it is a mystery. (That's not meant to be a cop out, btw.)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Love the topic. Subscribing.

Forgive me...

 

[~Anastasia~]

It can only be so, if one is ignorant of the doctrine itself.

Of the doctrine of transubstantiation, as taught in Catholicism? Somewhat.

I've read various parts of the Catechism about it, but it's been some time, some is half-remembered.

But I still think we are talking past one another a bit.

And like I said, I would prefer to ask a bishop or a priest to be sure, as to be honest, there are so many things that can be learned, I haven't asked every question. But ... I do think that most likely, from our point of view, merely the detail described by what I remember in Catholicism would be considered to go beyond what we know, certainly. And while I don't know every exact parameter of "Mystery" ... I still have some discomfort that even explaining the composition of the Eucharist to the degree that I think I recall Catholics doing, would violate the Mystery for us.

But I'm afraid I can't say more than that. I wouldn't be able to say for certain until I hear an Orthodox teacher I trust comment on the Catechism and possibly your relevant liturgical prayers and statements.

I haven't yet seen the actual full detail, in the exact words, of what Catholics believe in either of the threads (forgive me if you posted it and I have missed it).

 

[prodromos]

See that is the thing. Transubstantiation being declared dogma, was a result of defending the faith against heresy.

From memory, the current description using Aristotelian metaphysics came well over a century after the heresy was quashed.

 

[Paidiske]

Before transubstantiation was defined, did some people in the RCC start to move towards memorialism?

Did the heresies surrounding the Eucharist start to enter into the church, or were they external to the church?

The question of the real presence was well debated long before the Reformation. (You might find it interesting to read up on the disagreement between Radbertus and Ratramnus, two scholars in the same monastery in the 9th century).

For what it's worth, (I know nobody asked, but I've been following this discussion with interest), I think Anglicans would be closer to the Orthodox view on this. We affirm the change wrought by the Holy Spirit, and the presence of Christ in the sacrament, but we would not go beyond what our liturgy says in attempting to explain.