Eastern Orthodox Eucharist

[Bubba_Switzler]

I realize this is Eastern Catholicism but I thought this would be the best place to post this question.

The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is that there is an actual physical transformation.

The Protestant view is that it is merely symbolic.

I heard a talk recently that said that the Eastern Orthodox view is neither, that it is a spiritual phenomenon. More than symbolic but less than physical.

Is that accurate? What are the implications?

This source seems to imply something between the two but using the term “symbolic”.

In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Orthodox view is the same as the Catholic, except lacking - in contemporary times - the use of the Aristotlean word “transubstantiation”.

 

[RyanBlack]

Attending an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy should make perfectly clear that the Orthodox believe the consecrated elements to be the body and blood of Christ.

 

[twf]

It should also be noted that there isn’t a single Protestant view as implied in the OP. Evangelicals and Pentecostals typically see the Eucharist as strictly symbolic, but Methodists, Lutherans, and Anglicans often hold some understanding of a Real Presence.

 

[Padres1969]

It should also be noted that there isn’t a single Protestant view as implied in the OP. Evangelicals and Pentecostals typically see the Eucharist as strictly symbolic, but Methodists, Lutherans, and Anglicans often hold some understanding of a Real Presence.

Beat me to it. Many Protestants see the Eucharist as far more than symbolic.

 

[ChadS]

It should also be noted that there isn’t a single Protestant view as implied in the OP. Evangelicals and Pentecostals typically see the Eucharist as strictly symbolic, but Methodists, Lutherans, and Anglicans often hold some understanding of a Real Presence.

I seem to run across this line of thinking a lot on here especially in regards to the Methodist, Lutheran and Anglican understanding of the Real Presence. But, I just don’t see how, especially in my experiences as a United Methodist.

I suspect the members of the church I grew up in would be extremely surprised to find out that they believe in some sort of real presence. At most I would suggest they believe in a spiritual presence that then is apparently gone after the service (they have absolutely no problem putting the remaining grape juice back with the rest and the communion bread cubes are put back in the bag with the leftovers).

My mom’s cousin, who is an ordained minister, thinks there are groups within the UM that want to steer it more towards Wesleyan theology to the detriment of other historical branch of the UM, the Evangelical United Brethern. So perhaps there are groups that try to follow a Wesleyan thinking, but then there are others that try to emphasize their EUB background.

ChadS

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I suspect the members of the church I grew up in would be extremely surprised to find out that they believe in some sort of real presence.

I certainly don’t mean to stir up an argument over Protestant Eucharist theology but I am curious about a wider range of Eucharistic theologies so perhaps it’s worthwhile.

At most I would suggest they believe in a spiritual presence that then is apparently gone after the service (they have absolutely no problem putting the remaining grape juice back with the rest and the communion bread cubes are put back in the bag with the leftovers).

This is an interesting test of meaning. If it was viewed as truly transformational one would follow the Catholic practice. If purely symbolic, why not stick them back in the plastic bag or even toss them in the trash when they are stale.

What is the Eastern Orthodox practice here?

 

[ChadS]

This is an interesting test of meaning. If it was viewed as truly transformational one would follow the Catholic practice. If purely symbolic, why not stick them back in the plastic bag or even toss them in the trash when they are stale.

What is the Eastern Orthodox practice here?

I believe the majority of the Eucharist is consumed at their Divine Liturgies and only small amounts of the Eucharist are reserved in the church. Don’t forget that the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics combine the body and blood in the chalice and are then given the combined elements from the priest using something akin to a spoon.

So I would definitely say it not disposed of at the end of the liturgy or recombined with unconsecrated bread and wine.

ChadS

 

[adamhovey1988]

I was listening to Called to Communion the other day and he (Dr. Anders) was discussing with an Orthodox caller the concept of transubstantiation and the caller understood that the reason we have different terms in the west (and this was his own admission) was because of the heresies the west was fighting. They may not call it transubstantiation , but they DEFINITELY believe that bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

 

[mikevloria]

Eastern Orthodox believe in the true physical presence (body and blood) of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The Catholic church accepts all Eastern Orthodox sacraments including the Eucharist. My daughter converted from Eastern Orthodox to Catholicism and it only required her to make a proclamation of faith.

 

[Errham]

The Orthodox believe in the real presence just as much as any Catholic does, they’re just less picky about the intellectual and metaphysical aspects of it. For them, it just “becomes”; and further explanation is insufficient…

 

[Rohzek]

Orthodox understanding is that it is the body and blood of Christ for real. That being said, how it is done, the technical stuff involved, etc. we don’t elaborate on. So we disagree with Catholics who used and still use Aristotelian metaphysics to describe it. It is a mystery on the level of the Trinity or hypostatic union. So trying to describe it any further can only hope to be insufficient and to disappoint. That’s our viewpoint at least.

 

[Augustine]

… and further explanation is insufficient.

And unnecessary.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

They may not call it transubstantiation , but they DEFINITELY believe that bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Transubstantiation is not synonym with the Divine Presence in the Communion Species, but a theory or explanation on the means through which this is achieved by the Holy Trinity.

In this sense, the Orthodox merely dispense with the attempt at explaining the same belief shared with the Catholics.

Pax Christi

 

[twf]

Orthodox understanding is that it is the body and blood of Christ for real. That being said, how it is done, the technical stuff involved, etc. we don’t elaborate on. So we disagree with Catholics who used and still use Aristotelian metaphysics to describe it. It is a mystery on the level of the Trinity or hypostatic union. So trying to describe it any further can only hope to be insufficient and to disappoint. That’s our viewpoint at least.

And of course in reality, the Roman Rite liturgy often refers to the Eucharist as a “mystery”. No explanation will ever be sufficient. It is beyond mortal comprehension.

 

[Rohzek]

And of course in reality, the Roman Rite liturgy often refers to the Eucharist as a “mystery”. No explanation will ever be sufficient. It is beyond mortal comprehension.

Transubstantiation is Catholic dogma with all of its Aristotelian metaphysics. Just because Catholics still call it a mystery does not mean they understand the mystery in the same exact way as an Orthodox would. A lot of specific and complicated alternative theories were condemned throughout the centuries beginning the High Middle Ages, even though they too essentially argued that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ literally. They were condemned on the basis that Transubstantiation was correct, which was eventually proclaimed dogma.

 

[Augustine]

They were condemned on the basis that Transubstantiation was correct, which was eventually proclaimed dogma.

Indeed, a dogma of the Catholic Faith, yet never proclaimed as the total or complete explanation to what will ever remain a mystery.

Pax Christi

 

[5Loaves]

Attending an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy should make perfectly clear that the Orthodox believe the consecrated elements to be the body and blood of Christ.

That.

What do they/we pray before receiving?

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. **I believe also that this is truly Thine own pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. **Therefore I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen.

Pagan Catholic

 

[ChadS]

Indeed, a dogma of the Catholic Faith, yet never proclaimed as the total or complete explanation to what will ever remain a mystery.

Pax Christi

1376 in the CCC says “This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

So it seems to me that as long as one never denies that the bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ, one is free not to actually use the word transubstantiation or to believe that that word even describes what happens at the consecration.

From my perspective though, you would be extremely hard pressed to come up with a better word than transubstantiation and no one in the Church has managed to do it in an extremely long period of time. Although, at some times I think referring to the Eucharist as a mystery does a better job of things than transubstantiation does.

ChadS

 

[chimo]

I realize this is Eastern Catholicism but I thought this would be the best place to post this question.

The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is that there is an actual physical transformation.

The Protestant view is that it is merely symbolic.

I heard a talk recently that said that the Eastern Orthodox view is neither, that it is a spiritual phenomenon. More than symbolic but less than physical.

Is that accurate? What are the implications?

This source seems to imply something between the two but using the term “symbolic”.

oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist

The Eastern Orthodox believes in the same Body and Blood of Christ as it is received in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox do not think about the incredible change in words which the Catholic Church has put forth for the Orthodox tends to accept the change as a mystery without defining it. However this is the Orthodox would say “we do not know how the change is made but we know who accomplishes it”. The Eastern Orthodox would point to the Holy Spirit as the One who enacts this change on every Altar. It is the Holy Spirit who accomplishes the change. Just as it was the same Holy Spirit who incarnates the Lord Jesus in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary this same Holy Spirit incarnates the species of bread and wine into the very Lord Jesus Christ. Another Incarnation takes place on every Altar. The Orthodox however must compliment the Church of Rome’s role in defining the Holy Eucharist for the Church of Rome has this great ability to know how to define matters. The Catholic Church can also see the Orthodox Church’s ability to see matters as accomplished by the Holy Spirit just as great as an expression of faith which is just as strong as theirs.