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

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We can't reason our way through a mystery.

Any scolding is because of going too far... off the reservation so to speak.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

does or does it not BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ?

Mystically it does. Physically it is a bloodless worship. Says so in the text of the service.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"The Holy Eucharist is called the “sacrament of sacraments” in the Orthodox ... a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice."

The Orthodox Faith - Volume II - Worship - The Sacraments - Holy Eucharist

Forgive me...

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think you're getting into the main point I wanted to address from my earlier reply. At least the one that has stayed in my mind. You said, Erose, that you were concerned about Orthodox because I said

Is it the Body and Blood? Yes
Is it Bread and Wine (and water)? Yes

Just because we don't go into details of accidents and so on, describing in detail, most certainly does NOT mean that we don't affirm that it is truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord, as the Church has always affirmed.

The bread and wine are changed by the Holy Spirit, and are truly His precious Body and Blood. This is affirmed in our prayers.

We really cannot be forced to say more or less than this.

I understand you come at things differently, but this is what we believe and affirm, and can do nothing else.

God be with you.

 

[All4Christ]

To expand on that, we do believe they are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit

We also hold to the teachings of the Church Fathers.

For example, St Ambrose:

"You perhaps say: 'My bread is usual.' But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament."

-"The Sacraments" Book 4, Ch.4:14.

"Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.' [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body."

-"On the Mysteries" 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:

St. John Chrysostom:

"I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same."

Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy," 2,4, c. 397 A.D.

"It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him."

Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Treachery of Judas" 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:

"'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?' Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: 'What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.' He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us."

-"Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians" [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Another thing - we believe that it is along the same lines as the Divine Liturgy. Just as Heaven and Earth mystically join together with the liturgy, the Eucharist no longer belongs to this earthly realm, but becomes the glorified body and blood of Christ. That may not make sense, so I apologize about that.

 

[Erose]

We can't reason our way through a mystery.

Any scolding is because of going too far... off the reservation so to speak.

Forgive me...

So are you saying you don't believe the bread and wine BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So are you saying you don't believe the bread and wine BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ?

Nope. I do believe it.

Its real to me. Did it change? nope. Is that necessary? Nope.

It is what it is because he says it is. I dont need proof.

Forgive me...

 

[Erose]

Okay so now I take it you guys are trying to confuse the situation? One says it changes, another says it does not.

Either the bread and wine becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord or it doesn't. Becoming something else is whether you like it or not is a change.

Also no one here has proclaimed a physical change. Transubstantiation does not claim this. The only way you get to that is not understanding what substance means in a classical sense. It isn't what something is made of. I.e My substance isn't my flesh and blood. My substance is my humanity. Substance is what something is.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay so now I take it you guys are trying to confuse the situation? One says it changes, another says it does not.

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. 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.

Either the bread and wine becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord or it doesn't.

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.

Becoming something else is whether you like it or not is a change.

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.

And if that is agreeable (and of course I believe it should be, but I am talking about my own Church and its Orthodox faith, so I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to agree), then it is least possible to say that the 'change' is not so much of a type that one might perceive it with their senses (as in the question you asked me earlier about what my eyes and tongue would perceive), but a truth which we humbly submit to, whether we are intellectually satisfied in the process or not? Remember what Abba Anthony said about Abba Joseph in the saying I posted earlier: "Abba Joseph has understood it, for he says 'I do said, not know'."

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.

 

[All4Christ]

Okay so now I take it you guys are trying to confuse the situation? One says it changes, another says it does not.

Either the bread and wine becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord or it doesn't. Becoming something else is whether you like it or not is a change.

Also no one here has proclaimed a physical change. Transubstantiation does not claim this. The only way you get to that is not understanding what substance means in a classical sense. It isn't what something is made of. I.e My substance isn't my flesh and blood. My substance is my humanity. Substance is what something is.

Essence is that which makes something what it is. Substance is that out of which something is made. My essence is my humanity.

 

[Paidiske]

Essence is that which makes something what it is. Substance is that out of which something is made.

That is not the sense in which these words are being used in the Roman discourse around transubstantiation. In their neo-Aristotelian language, substance is what something is (closer to what you mean here by essence); not the physical matter of which it is made.

The language has moved on from what was common in the Trinitarian debates. To translate it back into the older language, it might be possible to talk about transessentialism.

 

[All4Christ]

That is not the sense in which these words are being used in the Roman discourse around transubstantiation. In their neo-Aristotelian language, substance is what something is (closer to what you mean here by essence); not the physical matter of which it is made.

The language has moved on from what was common in the Trinitarian debates. To translate it back into the older language, it might be possible to talk about transessentialism.

Thanks. I still would distinguish between matter, substance and essence myself. I didn't mean to imply substance to be the same as the matter which makes up something ("physical substance")

Aristotle did distinguish between essence and substance. In regards to essence: "The essence of a thing is what it is said to be in respect of itself".

On the other hand, he gave three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree: matter, form and composite of form and matter.

Did Neo-Aristotelian philosophy change this?

All that said, I digress....

 

[Paidiske]

Aristotle did distinguish between essence and substance. In regards to essence: "The essence of a thing is what it is said to be in respect of itself".

On the other hand, he gave three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree: matter, form and composite of form and matter.

Did Neo-Aristotelian philosophy change this?

All that said, I digress....

I'm not expert on Aristotle's work, but what you've put here is not, as I understand it, how neo-Aristotelian scholastics would have put it. But we're reaching the edges of my knowledge.

 

[All4Christ]

I'm not expert on Aristotle's work, but what you've put here is not, as I understand it, how neo-Aristotelian scholastics would have put it. But we're reaching the edges of my knowledge.

I'm stretching my mind to go back to university philosophy lol...tempted to go pull my old books off my bookshelf

 

[~Anastasia~]

Okay so now I take it you guys are trying to confuse the situation? One says it changes, another says it does not.

Either the bread and wine becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord or it doesn't. Becoming something else is whether you like it or not is a change.

Also no one here has proclaimed a physical change. Transubstantiation does not claim this. The only way you get to that is not understanding what substance means in a classical sense. It isn't what something is made of. I.e My substance isn't my flesh and blood. My substance is my humanity. Substance is what something is.

Not trying not to confuse.

I'm sure OrthodoxyUSA has good reason for saying what he does. Perhaps the reply centers on the definition of "change".


The reason for me saying "change" earlier centers on the prayer of the epiclesis ...


We ask, pray, and entreat Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered.

And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ. (Amen)

And that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ. (Amen)

Changing them by Your Holy Spirit. (Amen, Amen, Amen )

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Nothing physical changes, but something changes.

Confused about a mystery is not a bad thing.

Leave it alone. Let it remain a mystery.

Forgive me...

 

[All4Christ]

Nothing changes, but something changes.

Confused about a mystery is not a bad thing.

Leave it alone. Let it remain a mystery.

Forgive me...

I disagree the nothing changes part, even when paired with the "something changes". Even if it is still bread / wine and also the Body and Blood of Christ - it is fully sanctified. To say nothing changes implies much less of a mystery and more of purely symbolic change. The bread and wine mystically changes...and rest assured, it does change. Even with Baptism - the water changes. It becomes Holy. We can't just toss the bread and wine after the Eucharist, as it is sanctified and Holy.

Personally, I believe exactly what the liturgy says, which does say it is changed by the Holy Spirit. Certainly it is a mystery, and I think there are differences in the RCC s Orthodox understanding...but we do believe 100% that there is a change.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I disagree the nothing changes part, even when paired with the "something changes". Even if it is still bread / wine and also the Body and Blood of Christ - it is fully sanctified. To say nothing changes implies much less of a mystery and more of purely symbolic change. The bread and wine mystically changes...and rest assured, it does change. Even with Baptism - the water changes. It becomes Holy. We can't just toss the bread and wine after the Eucharist, as it is sanctified and Holy.

Personally, I believe exactly what the liturgy says, which does say it is changed by the Holy Spirit. Certainly it is a mystery, and I think there are differences in the RCC s Orthodox understanding...but we do believe 100% that there is a change.

I would think the change to be within rather than without but I guess that's why I'm not liturgical.

 

[All4Christ]

I would think the change to be within rather than without but I guess that's why I'm not liturgical.

Could you explain what you mean by within rather than without? I'm not sure I'm following.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Could you explain what you mean by within rather than without? I'm not sure I'm following.

What I mean can be given as a question so as not to violate forum rule ...
'if there is a change in the bread (without) to what does it avail if there is no corresponding change to the person (within)?'
Iow, the belief in the change seems better served to change within than without.
Bypass the middleman if you will ...