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

[~Anastasia~]

Well it is called catechesis for one, and two most don't really go beyond the fact that what they are receiving in the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

For that matter, I've wondered where the "soul and divinity" comes in?

I'm not aware that we "go there" either, and not quite sure what it means.

 

[All4Christ]

And quite frankly all that transubstantiation does is explain in philosophical term what we experience, so no it doesn't go beyond that mystery.

I really am confused why you guys keep ADDING to the doctrine of transubstantiation to rebuke it.

By very nature of using philosophical terms, it adds to the doctrine. Substance has multiple meanings - and inherently introduces the ability to understand it in different ways (it doesn't say trans-primary-substantiation). When you have theologians that use philosophical terms to describe it more , who are also saints - that also adds to the beliefs, since you hold to patristic interpretation..unless I am mistaken?

 

[dzheremi]

It is much easier to say that you can have philosophical speculations to the degree that it is allowed in your tradition, but that this becomes a problem when you have one tradition that dogmatizes such things, while every other one does not. Or at least that this becomes a problem when then the one who has dogmatized such things then tries to make it as though there really aren't any differences between what they are now teaching and what the Fathers taught, or what the other churches/traditions have established.

Again, I do not believe that "the sanctification is by the Holy Spirit" (the most explicit 'explanation' I could find in the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil) is saying "the accidents do this, while the substance is this, and this and that and this", on and on and on, as you will find when reading Roman Catholic explanations of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. One is clearly much more philosophically involved than the other. So it really matters very little that there are fathers like St. Jerome or St. Cyril of Jerusalem or whoever that a Roman Catholic will read and say that this proves the antiquity of their doctrine. This proves that they will read such writings in a manner that is consistent with their doctrine, no differently than any other Christian would (with the key difference being that it is not the EO or the OO who are saying that we believe the same thing as the RCC does, but instead the RC believers themselves).

 

[prodromos]

You must have.

Quite easy to do, since it isn't there.

 

[prodromos]

Another point of difference, I believe, is that Catholicism even attempts to go so far as to say exactly when the change occurs, whereas Orthodox are content to say that it has occured sometime before the end of the prayers.
The difference gives the appearance that the Holy Spirit is at the beck and call of the Catholic priest, and is likely what led to "hoc est corpus" being mocked by "hocus pocus".

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

If the ECF's believed in a physical change that could be recognized there would be a whole other subject in Christianity, namely .... "what does it look like?"

We should be able to find many Fathers discussing the physical appearance. There would be footnotes in the Liturgies, "be sure to look at it to be sure it changed before giving communion".

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What you have is two Saints saying that before the consecration you have mundane bread and wine, after the consecration you have the Body and Blood of the Lord, and only that.

No, that is not what it says.

Forgive me...

 

[Paidiske]

Another point of difference, I believe, is that Catholicism even attempts to go so far as to say exactly when the change occurs, whereas Orthodox are content to say that it has occured sometime before the end of the prayers.

Anglicans would say that we know it has occurred when the congregation says "Amen."

 

[prodromos]

Anglicans would say that we know it has occurred when the congregation says "Amen."

Indeed, that would be the end of the prayers.

 

[Erose]

For that matter, I've wondered where the "soul and divinity" comes in?

I'm not aware that we "go there" either, and not quite sure what it means.

It means that the the flesh and blood that we eat isn't dead. Jesus is alive and He is present in the Eucharist. If He is present in the Eucharist, how is He present? This comes from the Doctrine of Real Presence.

 

[Erose]

By very nature of using philosophical terms, it adds to the doctrine. Substance has multiple meanings - and inherently introduces the ability to understand it in different ways (it doesn't say trans-primary-substantiation). When you have theologians that use philosophical terms to describe it more , who are also saints - that also adds to the beliefs, since you hold to patristic interpretation..unless I am mistaken?

By using philosophical terms with specific definitions you are not adding to the doctrine, you are making it more clear. Did the Nicene Fathers add to the doctrine of the Trinity, by introducing philosophical terms to better explain said doctrine? The Nicene Fathers invented and redefined terms to clarify the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, and for that matter the Incarnation.

 

[Erose]

Here are the quotes again:

St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries Ch 9) 54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat Lec 19:7b ) For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ

My words: As you can read there is a before and an after. Before bread and wine; after Body and Blood of Christ.

And also this one form St. Gregory of Nyssa (Great Catechism Ch 37): For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle 1 Timothy 4:5, is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, This is My Body. Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements (metastoikeiosas) the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.

I would also like to add this paragraph from St. Ambrose's On the Mysteries: 52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.

 

[Erose]

It is much easier to say that you can have philosophical speculations to the degree that it is allowed in your tradition, but that this becomes a problem when you have one tradition that dogmatizes such things, while every other one does not.

Why is this really a problem? Like discussed before at least in the West, we have had to deal with quite a few heresies against the Eucharist, and this has forced us to a) name our belief, in contrast to the heresies; and b) explain to a greater detail what we believe. This is the method that the Church has used since the very beginning. Again using the example of the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. The journey taken by the Catholic Church is no different than the one taken concerning these two doctrines.

Or at least that this becomes a problem when then the one who has dogmatized such things then tries to make it as though there really aren't any differences between what they are now teaching and what the Fathers taught, or what the other churches/traditions have established.

Quite honestly the only difference between the doctrine of transubstantiation and what the early Fathers taught, is 1) We named the doctrine, and 2) we used different terminology to clarify the doctrine.

Again, I do not believe that "the sanctification is by the Holy Spirit" (the most explicit 'explanation' I could find in the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil) is saying "the accidents do this, while the substance is this, and this and that and this", on and on and on, as you will find when reading Roman Catholic explanations of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

One is clearly much more philosophically involved than the other. So it really matters very little that there are fathers like St. Jerome or St. Cyril of Jerusalem or whoever that a Roman Catholic will read and say that this proves the antiquity of their doctrine. This proves that they will read such writings in a manner that is consistent with their doctrine, no differently than any other Christian would (with the key difference being that it is not the EO or the OO who are saying that we believe the same thing as the RCC does, but instead the RC believers themselves).

Two things here. 1) This is the pot calling the kettle black; and 2) I'm really not sure if the EO and OO do believe anything near to what we believe, that is the reason for the thread. The more we discuss this question, the more confused I get, as I'm really going back and forth on: 1) the doctrines of the EO and OO are just less developed than ours and they are just mad we got there first; 2) that you guys believe in a form of consubstantiation; 3) that you guys believe in a form of Calvinist view of the Eucharist; or 4) you really don't know what you believe, and you are mad at us for thinking that we do. Haven't decided yet. I am not saying these things to be insulting, but it is hard to consider anything else especially considering that there is such a big attempt to add things to our beliefs to argue against them.

 

[All4Christ]

Here are the quotes again:

St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries Ch 9) 54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat Lec 19:7b ) For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ

My words: As you can read there is a before and an after. Before bread and wine; after Body and Blood of Christ.

And also this one form St. Gregory of Nyssa (Great Catechism Ch 37): For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle 1 Timothy 4:5, is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, This is My Body. Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements (metastoikeiosas) the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.

I would also like to add this paragraph from St. Ambrose's On the Mysteries: 52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.

I agree with all of these quotes. We (Eastern Orthodox) all agree with them.

 

[All4Christ]

By using philosophical terms with specific definitions you are not adding to the doctrine, you are making it more clear. Did the Nicene Fathers add to the doctrine of the Trinity, by introducing philosophical terms to better explain said doctrine? The Nicene Fathers invented and redefined terms to clarify the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, and for that matter the Incarnation.

Substance has multiple meanings. It allows for multiple understandings.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It means that the the flesh and blood that we eat isn't dead. Jesus is alive and He is present in the Eucharist. If He is present in the Eucharist, how is He present? This comes from the Doctrine of Real Presence.

Very well.

We do receive the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ (the reason for leavened bread, I understand). Obviously, since Christ is not dead, we receive the living Christ, but it is clarified in some places.

Where does it explain what soul and divinity means, can I ask? It seems to me as an outsider that if that isn't explained, it could mean all kinds of things. If it only means living, I don't quite understand why it isn't just "the living Christ" as we would say.

I don't mean this as criticism, just asking. It feels like nit-picking and I might not go into all of this myself, but the question was "what's the difference" so I'd have to understand.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why is this really a problem? Like discussed before at least in the West, we have had to deal with quite a few heresies against the Eucharist, and this has forced us to a) name our belief, in contrast to the heresies; and b) explain to a greater detail what we believe. This is the method that the Church has used since the very beginning. Again using the example of the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. The journey taken by the Catholic Church is no different than the one taken concerning these two doctrines.

I do understand and sympathize that Catholicism has had to answer more heresies.

I'm not really sure that is the only reason. What about other doctrines we would consider developed? Does purgatory, limbo, the discussion about what happens to infants who die, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, etc ... do these all exist in order to answer heresy? That might be too much a divergence for this thread, or might be a natural progression. To be honest, I don't sit around examining Catholic doctrine and dogma and trying to figure out where they originated and through what process. It is not my place to judge Catholicism, though I am interested in learning about it so that we can properly relate to one another.

But at least this maybe - what exactly were the heresies that necessitated the development/clarification of Eucharistic theology? And I'd really wish to know if the Orthodox answer is insufficient to answer those heresies. No offense, but if it is, then there would be no justification for developing doctrine.

Quite honestly the only difference between the doctrine of transubstantiation and what the early Fathers taught, is 1) We named the doctrine, and 2) we used different terminology to clarify the doctrine.

We can take it apart if you like, but I would disagree, because we affirm what the Fathers taught, but we cannot affirm everything Catholicism says.

Essentially they say that the bread and wine are changed to the Body and Blood during the Liturgy. End. Full stop. Nothing more.

Naming it wouldn't be a problem. Adding any extra explanation beyond what we are given would be, because to us it is necessarily speculation.

Two things here. 1) This is the pot calling the kettle black; and 2) I'm really not sure if the EO and OO do believe anything near to what we believe, that is the reason for the thread. The more we discuss this question, the more confused I get, as I'm really going back and forth on: 1) the doctrines of the EO and OO are just less developed than ours and they are just mad we got there first; 2) that you guys believe in a form of consubstantiation; 3) that you guys believe in a form of Calvinist view of the Eucharist; or 4) you really don't know what you believe, and you are mad at us for thinking that we do. Haven't decided yet. I am not saying these things to be insulting, but it is hard to consider anything else especially considering that there is such a big attempt to add things to our beliefs to argue against them.

It does unfortunately sound rather insulting, but I will try to clarify.

Firstly, no, we are not mad because Catholics did it first. Absolutely not. We consider it an error to try to explain the Mystery beyond what we know, so we can't be jealous that someone else got to error before we did. I hope that doesn't sound insulting in return, but you can dismiss that possibility.

And yes, we know exactly what we believe. It is repeated in every Divine Liturgy. We hear it over and over. You've had those posted here. And we've summarized them.

The bread and wine/water truly become the Body and Blood of our Risen Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit during the course of the Divine Liturgy. We pray for this to happen.

How this happens (other than by the power of the Holy Spirit), exactly when it happens, what it looks like or tastes like, in exactly what way it is changed (i.e. what we sense vs what we cannot sense), how long it remains so (except we do have reserved Eucharist for emergencies, and it can be pre-sanctified when necessary) ... we simply don't define, or concern ourselves with. We believe these things are a Mystery, and whatever we might speculate would be a guess. We might guess right, we might guess wrong, but how and why should we teach as if we know, or worse yet, reason our way to even MORE teaching based on that speculation which could be false for all we know?

For nearly thousands of years now we have received the Eucharist in just such a way, and miss nothing.


We don't believe explicitly in consubstantiation because that requires a defining of the Eucharist as well, just not the same defining as the Catholics do. We reject the very act of defining. We are not concerned so much to reject this particular definition or that particular definition - we reject defining, because the Fathers did not define it. Is this making sense?

That seems to be our difference. You seem to wish to lay out definitions, and insist that we must believe in one of them. Do you really not see that we reject the act of defining? I'm not trying to insult. I really do find a different way of thinking between east and west, and it was very difficult for me becoming Orthodox. I wanted everything explained too. It's what I come from, and how I was used to thinking. It took an actual paradigm shift (which took many months of immersion) to really understand. So I think maybe that's what you might not be able to understand. Again, no insult.

I'm not sure what definition of Calvinistic thought you think we might believe, but I imagine it falls into the categories of consubstatintiation and Catholic teaching, at best. If they have a Eucharistic belief, it us probably over-defined as well. If they don't have a Eucharistic belief, then we can't agree at all.

I'm not sure if this is helping.

By the way, one other possible difference. I've never asked, and as far as I know, we simply don't do it. But Catholics affirm that both the Body AND Blood are present in both bread and wine, so that one need not receive both. I'm not sure whether we can agree ... I've not asked. All that I do know is that we pray for the bread to become the Body, the wine to become the Blood, just as Christ said. I'm not sure we can affirm anything else or not. (I can see a reasoning for it, but again, in my understanding it may well go past what we have received and may be speculation - but I am not speaking for Orthodoxy on this since I have not asked. We always offer both so it never occurred to me to ask.)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We are not mad because Catholics did it first. Absolutely not. We consider it an error to try to explain the Mystery beyond what we know, so we can't be jealous that someone else got to error before we did.

Certainly not.

Forgive me...

 

[Erose]

I agree with all of these quotes. We (Eastern Orthodox) all agree with them.

Even when St. Ambrose speaks of a change in nature and St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of a change in elements?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Even when St. Ambrose speaks of a change in nature and St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of a change in elements?

Having an additional nature does not negate the first nature. Two natures of Christ for example.

Forgive me...