Eastern Catholics: Real Presence, but not Transubstantiation

[Mongol]

This is interesting. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Eastern_Christianity Eastern Catholics don’t accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Of course they believe in the Real Presence, but they don’t explain it philosophically like the Latin Rite does. Does this mean that I, as a Latin Rite Catholic, am free to accept or not accept Transubstantiation as long as I believe in the Real Presence?

A step further: would this mean Anglicans converting to Catholicism would be free to retain Anglican Eucharistic theology, since they have the Real Presence but not (necessarily) Transubstantiation?

 

[Richca]

This is interesting. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Eastern_Christianity Eastern Catholics don’t accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Of course they believe in the Real Presence, but they don’t explain it philosophically like the Latin Rite does. Does this mean that I, as a Latin Rite Catholic, am free to accept or not accept Transubstantiation as long as I believe in the Real Presence?

A step further: would this mean Anglicans converting to Catholicism would be free to retain Anglican Eucharistic theology, since they have the Real Presence but not (necessarily) Transubstantiation?

I do not see anywhere in the link to the wikipedia article you give where it says that eastern catholics don’t accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation was dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates that teaching of the council. The doctrine of transubstantiation is an infallible dogma and truth of the catholic faith to be held by all catholics anywhere in the world whether eastern, latin, or whatever rite.

 

[Vico]

This is interesting. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Eastern_Christianity Eastern Catholics don’t accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Of course they believe in the Real Presence, but they don’t explain it philosophically like the Latin Rite does. Does this mean that I, as a Latin Rite Catholic, am free to accept or not accept Transubstantiation as long as I believe in the Real Presence?

A step further: would this mean Anglicans converting to Catholicism would be free to retain Anglican Eucharistic theology, since they have the Real Presence but not (necessarily) Transubstantiation?

Byzantine Catholic Church - Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (2006)
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over both the bread and chalice, praying aloud:
CELEBRANT: + Changing them by your Holy Spirit.
DEACON: Amen, amen, amen.
Modern Catholic Dictiionary
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)

 

[tweedlealice]

I do not see anywhere in the link to the wikipedia article you give where it says that eastern catholics don’t accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation was dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates that teaching of the council. The doctrine of transubstantiation is an infallible dogma and truth of the catholic faith to be held by all catholics anywhere in the world whether eastern, latin, or whatever rite.

I will say this at “THE SAINT HELEN AND CONSTANTINE GREEK CHURCH” in my city in the south, they will not serve me consecrated elements of the bread and wine (body and blood). They announce only Greek Orthodox Catholics can come forward.
I have traveled to the Republic of Georgia on the Black Sea. My son and family lives there. He had to convert to marry Mariam and I cannot receive communion there. Even though both churches believe in the true presence. Of course, we have a large wound to mend w them. In 500AD, Rome went crusaders to massacre the Orthodox priests, clerics and people.My husband is from Ireland and he holds grudges. On our attempt at unity,who would lay the scepter down? Rome or Constantinople (Istanbul)? That is going to be the real crux of the problem. God forgive us our sins and bring healing to all we have hurt collectively as a church and individually as its representatives. In Jesus’ most precious name. tweedlealice

 

[Richard_White]

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, plain and simple. Listen to Vico’s post above.

May God bless you this Easter season and always!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, plain and simple. Listen to Vico’s post above.

I agree that Vico’s post is concise and provides a more accurate and well cited explanation of the point being made in Wikipedia article.

From the Eucharistic Prayer (prayed by the faithful before the reception of the Holy Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy - Byzantine Ruthenian usage):

May the partaking of Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of my soul and body. O Lord, I also believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly Your most precious body and Your life-giving blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

 

[wynd]

I agree that Vico’s post is concise and provides a more accurate and well cited explanation of the point being made in Wikipedia article.

From the Eucharistic Prayer (prayed by the faithful before the reception of the Holy Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy - Byzantine Ruthenian usage):

May the partaking of Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of my soul and body. O Lord, I also believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly Your most precious body and Your life-giving blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

This goes to the heart of the thread topic. This prayer certainly implies belief in the Real Presence, but not necessarily belief in transubstantiation.

 

[thinkandmull]

Real Presence is transubstantiation. Everyone probably has their own little mental “phantasm” (Scholastic word) for what substance is, but we all believe the same thing

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Real Presence is transubstantiation. Everyone probably has their own little mental “phantasm” (Scholastic word) for what substance is, but we all believe the same thing

Or perhaps put more scholastically, Real Presence is the result of transubstantiation.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Not even many Orthodox are averse to the term or idea:*
Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church (p 53-54)
“Q. What is the name of the change which took place at the Mystic Supper, does it take place now, and by what power? A. Transubstantiation, and it takes place now also by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Bishops and Priests.”

The Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church by Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47) (#107)
Answer to question 107: “Fourthly, attention must be paid that the priest have, at the time of consecration, the intention that the real substance of the bread and the substance of wine be transubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit. He makes this invocation when he confects this mystery by praying and saying: “Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered and make this bread the precious body of your Christ, and that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ, changing them by your Holy Spirit.” (69) Transubstantiation occurs immediately with these words, and the bread is transubstantiated into the real body of Christ and the wine into the real blood of Christ, with the visible appearances alone remaining; and this happens in accord with the divine disposition for two reasons. First, so that we do not see the body of Christ, but rather believe that it is so, because of the words spoken by Christ the Lord: “This is my body”, etc. and “This is my blood . . .”, spoken not to our senses, since he promised us happiness for this with the words: “Blessed are they who do not see, but believe.”[254] Secondly, because human nature recoils from the eating of live flesh, yet man should be united to Christ the Lord by the communion of the flesh of Christ the Lord and the blood of Christ the Lord; so that man, therefore, would not turn away, the Lord determined to give his flesh and blood to eat and drink to the faithful under the appearance of bread and wine.”

Orthodox Wiki
“Other areas of agreement between Greek Orthodoxy and the AOC included common acceptance of the dogmatic decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the seven Sacraments, the original form of the Nicene Creed, the concept of transubstantiation, the declaration of the Virgin Mary as Mother of God, justification by both faith and good works, and the rejection of predestination.”
*

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Confession of Dositheus (6.17e, 6.17h) (akaActs and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, A.D. 1672)
"So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descendeth upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth. … “Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above. Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who hath received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox, and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics; but necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress the Catholic Church of Christ rejecteth and anathematiseth.”

Council of Constantinople 1727
“As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word transubstantiation, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ.”*

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Confession of Dositheus (6.17e, 6.17h) (akaActs and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, A.D. 1672)​

"… therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth. … “Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety”

Marco, the Orthodox would and could certainly refer to the term as a point of reference, and they do as you have well demonstrated.

That said, in one of your posts, you have actually cited (excerpted above) the reason why an Orthodox Christian (and more generally, an Eastern Christian - Catholic or Orthodox) would not unduly limit their understanding of this great and holy Mystery in such a way. Read carefully, this excerpted portion of the cited text actually characterizes the term as inadequate in its ability to explain the manner in which the change takes place.

The Eastern Christian mind accepts that the change has indeed taken place and simply understands it as a mystery of faith.

What is essential to the True Faith is the believe in what is termed the Real Presence.
​

​

 

[malphono]

The Eastern Christian mind accepts that the change has indeed taken place and simply understands it as a mystery of faith.

Yes, quite so. I’ll take it a step further and say understanding and expressing it that way is not limited to the EO.

 

[Alfonsus]

Yes, quite so. I’ll take it a step further and say understanding and expressing it that way is not limited to the EO.

Basically that citation from The Confession of Dositheus explain the Latin position too. Transubstantiation is not the why or how, it is what after consecration took place. The how is simply “by the Holy Spirit.”

It confuses more to hear and read people say that the Latins try to explain the “how” by the term transubstantiation.

 

[eamonnroma]

I have always considered the the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches believe as we do in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They do not define it as we do, but believe it as a matter of Faith.

 

[MarcoPolo]

inadequate in its ability to explain the manner in which the change takes place.

Latin Catholics think no differently. Transubstantiation in no way forfeits the mystery nor explains the “manner” in which the change occurs.

 

[Errham]

As others have stated: Eastern Catholics, nor the Eastern Orthodox for that matter, “reject” the doctrine of transubstantiation. They simply make no attempt to explain exactly HOW the real presence comes into being in the Eucharist, nor do they care for the metaphysics behind it. They accept it as a mystery of faith, and the view the adoration of the real presence as being far more important than explaining it.

The reason for this, is that the concept of transubstantiation is based on Aristotelian metaphysics, which is somewhat foreign to the Eastern Church. The Eastern Churches have never been very interested in philosophy, so it isn’t something that most priests are well-versed in as it is in the west. One finds that, as a general trend, the Western Rite tends to be more interested in the scholarly/intellectual aspects of the faith, whereas the Eastern Rites (and Orthodox) tend to be more interested in the mystical aspects of the faith. For the “good” Catholic, of both Western and Eastern Rites, these views should never in any way contradict each other; rather they should complement each other, being united to each other in order to fully explain and teach the faith. Therefore, the doctrine of transubstantiation holds true, however the Eastern teaching also reminds us Westerners, who are so caught up in philosophy, that such a doctrine is merely an attempt to explain a mystery of the faith and is of very minor importance compared to the doctrine that the entire mass is based on, that Christ is truly present and worshiped in the Eucharist.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The reason for this, is that the concept of transubstantiation is based on Aristotelian metaphysics, which is somewhat foreign to the Eastern Church. The Eastern Churches have never been very interested in philosophy, so it isn’t something that most priests are well-versed in as it is in the west.

I would differ on this point, at least to a certain degree. It was St. Athanasius in the East who was a leader during the Arian heresy, in which he argued for the use of homoousios, a Greek philosophical term to describe the “same substance” of the persons of the Trinity. So to use the Latin term Transubstantiation, meaning “change in substance,” should not be alien to the East. And as evidenced in my earlier posts in this thread, there are indeed many Orthodox who have no aversion to the term Transubstantiation. To boot, many Orthodox or Easterns use the term Metaousios in reference to the Eucharist, which is just a Greek synonym for Transbustantiation. Both mean change in substance in their etymologies.

 

[Errham]

I would differ on this point, at least to a certain degree. It was St. Athanasius in the East who was a leader during the Arian heresy, in which he argued for the use of homoousios, a Greek philosophical term to describe the “same substance” of the persons of the Trinity. So to use the Latin term Transubstantiation, meaning “change in substance,” should not be alien to the East. And as evidenced in my earlier posts in this thread, there are indeed many Orthodox who have no aversion to the term Transubstantiation. To boot, many Orthodox or Easterns use the term Metaousios in reference to the Eucharist, which is just a Greek synonym for Transbustantiation. Both mean change in substance in their etymologies.

I should clarify: I didn’t mean that the Easterners aren’t into philosophy. I simply meant that (as a general trend) Western philosophy is simply much more developed than Eastern philosophy. The Eastern philosophers tended to be more interested in using philosophy as a tool to combat heresy, then they were in developing philosophy in and of itself purely for philosophy’s sake. One should remember that the two greatest philosophers of the church, who together are responsible for probably more all the others combined - namely, Aquinas and Augustine - are not very well-known in the East.

That being said, you do make a very good point, however miss one crucial fact. Orthodoxy, lacking a unified teaching body such as the Magesterium, essentially stopped developing doctrine entirely after the schism, and relies on the seven great councils almost entirely for doctrine. In the absence of a unified teaching body, without which pretty much any philosophical concept would prove extremely controversial, one could say that the atmosphere in the East has simply been too hostile to any radical philosophical development since the schism. This is in contrast to Catholicism, who through the teachings of the Magesterium are constantly expounding on, although never changing, doctrine. It’s simply an environment that’s a lot more conductive to philosophical thought, because, in the event of controversy, we can still call a council to clarify doctrine, or at the very least expect the church to somewhat do so. While the East still has the occasional great synod, one could say that they’re much more hostile to the idea of new thought.

 

[Ceddd99]

My understanding is that the Eastern approach is more along the lines of simply saying it is the body of Christ, now open your mouth, rather than coming up with complicated intellectual abstractions of what exactly that means or when exactly it becomes the body of Christ, none of that intellectualization is really what is important, what is important is recieiving Christ.