Eastern Orthodox Eucharist Question

[Whitney]

Hey all! I had an interesting conversation at coffee hour after an orthodox Divine Liturgy a couple weeks ago I wanted your perspective on. A man there, a convert from a Baptist background, engaged me on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, stating that Orthodox do not specifically believe in transubstantiation, but instead a mystical and undefined presence. He followed that up by giving me the advice that the Catholic Church has “no evidence” of transubstantiation. When I responded “actually there have been miracles of the bread and wine changing substance which they tested and it was all the same blood type” Then he said “well in the Orthodox Church if the bread and wine change like that there are prayers the priest has to pray and get rid of it because it’s demonic.” (Paraphrased).
Has anyone ever heard of this belief in the EO?

 

[HeDa]

I would reply that the East (Orthodox and Catholics) didn’t go through the Enlightenment period in the same way as the West. Therefor, they can say that “It is all a mystery.” during the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. While the West has asked the question “Exactly when does the bread and wine turn into the Body and Blood of Christ?” Different traditions, cultures, languages and also different ways of living a Christian life.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

stating that Orthodox do not specifically believe in transubstantiation, but instead a mystical and undefined presence.

Eastern Catholics, of course, do not use the Latin word transubstantiation but they do believe in the same Eucharist as Catholics. The term Sacred Mysteries is used as a synonym for Sacraments. It is the radical Protestants who are out of step with apostolic Christians on Sacramental theology.

See:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Eucharist

 

[Spyridon]

Church if the bread and wine change like that there are prayers the priest has to pray and get rid of it because it’s demonic.” (Paraphrased).

This is an anti-Catholic myth perpetuated by some hyperdox internet orthodox.

The actual Russian Orthodox service book (Sluzhebnik) says this:

"If after the consecration of the bread or the wine a miracle should
appear, namely, that the appearance of the bread would become that of
flesh, or of a child, or the wine appearing as blood, and if this
appearance does not change shortly, meaning, if the appearance of bread or
wine does not return, but remains unchanged, in no way should the priest
commune, for these are not the Body and Blood of Christ, but simply a
miracle from God, manifested as a reult of disbelief or other cause,–let
the priest take another prosphoron (if only the appearance of the bread
changed), and as shown above, let him perform the proskomedia actions and
words with it, let him take out the Holy Lamb, and having set aside the one
that has been miraculously changed and preserved it with care, let him
begin with the prayer “With these blessed powers we also…”, and let him
perform all in order, but repeat nothing over the chalice. If it is in the
chalice that the appearance of wine has changed, let him into a new holy
chalice, or having poured out the contents into another vessel, into the
chalice pour wine again, saying the words of the proskomedia over it, and
so, let him consecrate it as usual, and at the time of Communion let him
commune as always, and complete the service.

“If shortly that which had appeared as flesh, or a child, should again
appear to be bread, or in the chalice, that which had appeared to be blood
should once again appear as wine, let him not sacrifice another lamb, or
pour new wine into the chalice, but let him commune with these, and so
complete the service: for they are the true Body and Blood of Christ.”

 

[Wesrock]

There are many Orthodox Churches so i don’t know if I can comment on all of them, but my understanding is that some reject the word “transubstantiation” as they view it is having scholastic baggage (some don’t reject the word and use a similar term in Greek). The Orthodox are just largely opposed to trying to categorize and rationalize the mystery of the Eucharist in metaphysical terms. They still believe there is a change and that it becomes the body and blood of Christ Jesus. They still believe the sacrament has a sacrificial component. This Baptist objection doesn’t understand the Orthodox position and if he understood it he’d object to it just as much as he does the Catholic one.

 

[Mary888]

I had a recent discussion about this on a forum with an Orthodox monk priest who also has a Phd in theology. I was referring to the terms “transcosubstantiation” and “transubstantion” referring to our Eucharist and he explained to me that these terms simply are not discussed in EO much because they belong to the Catholic tridentine and thomist (from Tomas Aquinas) theology. Yes Christ is present in the Eucharist but these terms are not used.
What is the best term to define the Orthodox Eucharist is “Actualization” of the Last Supper - through this mystery Christ makes Himself present body, blood and soul to a Last Supper that takes place in present time while it is as real as it was when it happened with the Apostles.
The discussion was about someone asking if Christ is crucified during the Eucharist in church and priests explained that this is not the case. What is being reconstructed is the Last Supper not the crucifixion itself which was of course a bad thing to happen. It is during the Last Supper that Christ said - “eat and drink this is my flesh and my blood…”
So a general transubstantion without the frame of a Last Supper is not discussed in Orthodoxy.
My added reason as to why it may be so, would be to make sure we do not crucify Christ but become His servants and His friends during the Eucharist which happens as the Last Supper happened.

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

As someone who just left the Orthodox Church for Catholicism less than a week ago, I can tell you that the Orthodox Church does believe that the Eucharist is truly the Flesh & Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ… the problem the Orthodox have with the Catholic definition of “transubstantiation” is basically, why does the Catholic Church try to define a Mystery? Orthodox are content to let it remain a Mystery. Orthodox are generally shocked and appalled by some of the Catholic Church Scholars who, in there estimation, “waste time” attempt to determine how many angels can fit on the point of a needle (wasn’t that St. Thomas Aquinas?)

Re: Eucharist, Orthodox pray at each Divine Liturgy what we believe & there’s no doubt we believe Jesus Body & Blood is received in the Eucharist:
"I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, in knowledge or in ignorance. And make me worthy, without condemnation, to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the remission of sins and for eternal life. Amen.

Behold, I approach for Divine Communion.
O Maker, burn me not as I partake,
For You are fire consuming the unworthy.
But cleanse me from every stain.

O Son of God, receive me today as a partaker of Your mystical supper. For I will not speak of the mystery to Your enemies, nor will I give You a kiss, as did Judas. But like the thief, I confess to You: Remember me, Lord, in Your Kingdom.

Tremble, O man, as you behold the divine Blood.
It is a burning coal that sears the unworthy.
The Body of God both deifies and nourishes me:
It deifies the Spirit and wondrously nourishes the mind.

You have smitten me with yearning, O Christ, and by Your divine eros You have changed me. But burn up with spiritual fire my sins, and grant me to be filled with delight in You, so that, leaping for joy, I may magnify, O Good One, Your two comings.

How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I should dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my vesture will condemn me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. Cleanse, O Lord, the filth of my soul, and save me, as You are the one Who loves mankind. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul, and save me.

Master Who loves mankind, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these Holy Gifts be to my judgment because I am unworthy, but rather for the purification and sanctification of both soul and body and the pledge of the life and Kingdom to come. It is good for me to cleave unto God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.

O Son of God, receive me today as a partaker of Your mystical supper. For I will not speak of the mystery to Your enemies, nor will I give You a kiss, as did Judas. But like the thief, I confess to You: Remember me, Lord, in Your Kingdom."

 

[Whitney]

This Baptist objection doesn’t understand the Orthodox position and if he understood it he’d object to it just as much as he does the Catholic one.

Yeah the way he explained it sounded like consubstantiation like Lutherans and Anglicans, but that wasn’t the impression I get from reading about Orthodoxy. Sounds like that’s not the case but that they believe more like the Catholic teaching but less “defined” if you will…

 

[Whitney]

This is an anti-Catholic myth perpetuated by some hyperdox internet orthodox.

Thanks for your response! This is mainly what I was asking in this post, does orthodoxy really consider Eucharist miracles demonic. Sounds like from what you posted they do the ceremony again, and if it still changes they go ahead and consume that… interesting! I guess I never considered whether Catholics use the miraculous Eucharist? I assumed that they kept it like the one on display in France.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the Confession of Faith from the EO Council of Jerusalem in 1672 is helpful here. They explicitly profess belief in transubstantiation, but qualify it to say this word cannot be said to explain the whole mystery and process. I don’t think a Catholic would disagree with what is said below:

He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

and later

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.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

 

[Kei]

If you go to eastern Churches and go to their description of the Eucharist you can come across some very literal interpretations, some very blunt. Like, The Eucharist is where we eat of the Flesh of Jesus

 

[Wesrock]

I always feel that Lutherans and Orthodox attach too much scholastic metaphysics to the dogma of transubstantiation. Yes, some scholastics and others have attempted to describe it somewhat in metaphysical terms, but that goes beyond actual Catholic dogma, and the term transubstantiation was used prior to Saint Thomas Aquinas, anyway.

 

[twf]

It sounds like this particular Orthodox convert may still carry some Baptist baggage. The Orthodox Christians I know certainly believe that the Eucharist IS Christ and not some vague spiritual presence. My Orthodox cousin also has spoken to me of Orthodox Eucharistic miracles and sees them as a good and holy thing…

 

[Whitney]

My Orthodox cousin also has spoken to me of Orthodox Eucharistic miracles and sees them as a good and holy thing…

That’s good to know! I really enjoyed reading about them and they are one of the things that originally drew me to Catholicism.

 

[dochawk]

Sounds like that’s not the case but that they believe more like the Catholic teaching but less “defined” if you will…

This.

The best explanation I’ve seen is the question, “Does the change to the Body and Blood occur at a), b), or c)?”–to which the Eastern answer is “yes!”

The insistence on this level of detail just doesn’t fit with Eastern thinking.

hawk