Eastern Catholics: Real Presence, but not Transubstantiation

[Vico]

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.

The moment and method appear to be explicitly stated in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:Moreover, we offer to you this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice; and we implore, pray, and entreat you: send down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts lying before us. … + 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. … That for those who partake of them they may bring about a spirit of vigilance, the remission of sins, the communion of your Holy Spirit, the fullness of the heavenly kingdom, and confidence in you, not judgment or condemnation. (The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon together make a profound bow.)

 

[wynd]

The moment and method appear to be explicitly stated in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:Moreover, we offer to you this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice; and we implore, pray, and entreat you: send down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts lying before us. … + 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. … That for those who partake of them they may bring about a spirit of vigilance, the remission of sins, the communion of your Holy Spirit, the fullness of the heavenly kingdom, and confidence in you, not judgment or condemnation. (The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon together make a profound bow.)

Maybe a topic for another thread, but: the words you have highlighted appear after the words of institution. Would you say the change takes place at the words of institution or at the epiklesis?

 

[Vico]

Maybe a topic for another thread, but: the words you have highlighted appear after the words of institution. Would you say the change takes place at the words of institution or at the epiklesis?

At the Council of Florence Isadore of Kiev and other Greek metropolitans, agreed that the words of institution were sufficient for consecration. The Liturgy of St. Basil has a slightly different expression because there “make” is replace with “show” which allows understanding. There is more than one change: 1) this is my body, 2) this is my blood, 3) show. Also, the word moreover in the epiklesis means that it is in addition. Present are the institition words, the epiklesis, and the blessing of the priest (there are two sets of signings.) Note also the Anaphora of Addai and Mari used by the Chaldeans also is a valid consecration, and demonstrates that there is more than one valid way to confect the Eucharist.

 

[Alfonsus]

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church said that the changing happens by the efficacy word of Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1375).

The Catholic Church does not define the necessity of explicit institution narrative and/or epiclesis. It gave room for explicit epiclesis or assume His implicit invocation. It gave room for less than explicit invocation of institution narrative as the case in the Assyrian Anaphora case.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Maybe a topic for another thread, but: the words you have highlighted appear after the words of institution. Would you say the change takes place at the words of institution or at the epiklesis?

In the Byzantine tradition, it is commonly held that the change takes places between the Rite of Preparation (performed by the Priest before the start of the Divine Liturgy) and the Epiklesis (as highlighted in Vico’s post). For that reason, the Holy Gifts are reverenced throughout the course of the Divine Liturgy.

 

[thinkandmull]

“Aristotelian metaphysics, which is somewhat foreign to the Eastern Church.”

Aristotle says a number of things in his metaphysics, lots of which are not foreign to the East. Who in the world doesn’t know what potency and activity are? What Catholics in general mean by substance-vs-accidents is up to debate

 

[Shirtless]

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 am a Ukrainian Catholic (Byzantine Rite). My understanding is that Roman Rite Catholics and Eastern Catholics share a common belief in the Eucharist (i.e. the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ), but we do not use the word “Transubstantiation” to describe it, nor do we presume to identify the precise moment during the liturgy at which it occurs. The process may begin at the Great Entrance (offertory) and is completed no later than the time when, after the words of Consecration, the priest calls down the blessings of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis). A primary rule among Eastern Catholics is that “about which little is known, little should be said.” The entire thing is a mystery of faith.

 

[Vico]

“Aristotelian metaphysics, which is somewhat foreign to the Eastern Church.”

Aristotle says a number of things in his metaphysics, lots of which are not foreign to the East. Who in the world doesn’t know what potency and activity are? What Catholics in general mean by substance-vs-accidents is up to debate

Greek Fathers from the sixth to eleventh century used Aristotle more than of Plato in the defense of Christian doctrine. It was because of the controversies brought on by Origen (Plato, Pythagoras, and Plotinus were favored by Origenists). Also Christian theology had to make distinctions definitions and Aristotle provided more tools than in Plato to that end, being systematic. Aristotle was strong in the theological schools of Syria and school of Edessa. The monk Leontius of Byzantium from the sixth century favored Aristotle (the Categories) in his works and his works were orthodox. Maximus the Confessor then used the terminology of Leontius. St. John of Damascus works use Aristotelian Neoplatonism. St. Photius and Arethas continued the Aristotelian tradition in the ninth and tenth century.

 

[Richca]

I am a Ukrainian Catholic (Byzantine Rite). My understanding is that Roman Rite Catholics and Eastern Catholics share a common belief in the Eucharist (i.e. the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ), but we do not use the word “Transubstantiation” to describe it, nor do we presume to identify the precise moment during the liturgy at which it occurs. The process may begin at the Great Entrance (offertory) and is completed no later than the time when, after the words of Consecration, the priest calls down the blessings of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis). A primary rule among Eastern Catholics is that “about which little is known, little should be said.” The entire thing is a mystery of faith.

I think the Catholic Church in its teaching and practice, at least in the liturgy in the west, makes it quite clear when during the eucharistic prayer the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. The change takes place when the priest pronounces the words of Christ, “This is my body…This is my blood…” In the CCC#1353 it says: “In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.” The essence or substance of the eucharistic prayer are the very words of Jesus at the Last Supper where he instituted the sacrament of the eucharist and which we have recorded in the gospels. In the latin liturgy, after pronouncing the words of Jesus, “This is my body…This is my blood…” the priest holds up the now consecrated host and chalice for the adoration of the faithful, and then he genuflects before the consecrated elements.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think the Catholic Church in its teaching and practice, at least in the liturgy in the west, makes it quite clear when during the eucharistic prayer the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. The change takes place when the priest pronounces the words of Christ, “This is my body…This is my blood…” In the CCC#1353 it says: “In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.” The essence or substance of the eucharistic prayer are the very words of Jesus at the Last Supper where he instituted the sacrament of the eucharist and which we have recorded in the gospels. In the latin liturgy, after pronouncing the words of Jesus, “This is my body…This is my blood…” the priest holds up the now consecrated host and chalice for the adoration of the faithful, and then he genuflects before the consecrated elements.

Most of the Eastern Liturgical Traditions say the same words… and then follow it, after some Anaphora and post-Anaphoro with the Epiclesis - which states more or less, “Let the Holy Spirit come down and make this the Body… " … " and let Him perfect the mixture in this chalice… into the Blood of Christ”… etc…