Eucharistic celebration - transubstantiation

[stuartc]

regarding the differences between the catholic position and the orthodox position. It is my understanding that within the catholic tradition the priest acts in the place of christ throughout the eucharist and in this way his actions allows the change of water and bread into blood and body as were the orthodox position is that through the invocation of the priest, the holy spirit descends upon the gifts and changes them in a way that will never be fully understood, referred to as the “divine mystery”.

which do you agree with? i say, although practising roman catholicism, i am tending towards the orthodox postion

 

[Phyllo]

regarding the differences between the catholic position and the orthodox position. It is my understanding that within the catholic tradition the priest acts in the place of christ throughout the eucharist and in this way his actions allows the change of water and bread into blood and body as were the orthodox position is that through the invocation of the priest, the holy spirit descends upon the gifts and changes them in a way that will never be fully understood, referred to as the “divine mystery”.

which do you agree with? i say, although practising roman catholicism, i am tending towards the orthodox postion

See paragraph 1353 of the CCC

 

[DavidFilmer]

This is a question regarding a rather fine point of doctrine - exactly when does the bread/wine become the Body/Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Orthodox theologians (which includes, AFAIK, Eastern Rite Catholics) believe this happens at a point in the Mass called the Epiclesis. Latin theologians believe it happens at a point in the Mass called the Anamnesis. Both Eastern and Western liturgies incorporate both, so the distinction is irrelevant to the person in the pew.

In the Latin Rite, the Epiclesis immediately preceeds the Anamnesis (and bells are rung at the Epiclesis when bells are used). The Epiclesis is the part where the priest invokes the Holy Spirit, such as: “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”

In the Latin Rite, the next sentence is the Anamnesis, which is the Greek word used the Bible for “remembrance” and recounts the enactment of the Last Supper (“On the night he was betrayed…”)

In Orthodox liturgy, the order is reversed. It begins with the Anamnesis, and concludes with the Epiclesis. But both liturgies incorporate both elements.

As far as I know, the Church has never definitively taught either viewpoint as a matter of doctrine. Any Catholic may hold either opinion. Personally I favor the Eastern position because it seems “cleaner.” The Latin position leaves me wondering - does the consecration happen at the words, “this is my Body” or “this is my Blood?” If the priest got shot after saying, “This is my Body,” would it still be Eucharist? Would the failure to consecrate the wine invalidate the Sacrament? I have no idea (the doctrine of concomotance suggests that everything is OK, but it still seems messy). The question seems messy to me, and I like things to be nice and tidy. The Eastern viewpoint offers tidiness.

But, either way, all the bases are covered.

 

[Sherry_G]

See paragraph 1353 of the CCC

I’ll stick with the CCC. I accept the church teachings as my own interpretation has only led me astray in the past!

 

[pat_mc_1]

regarding the differences between the catholic position and the orthodox position. It is my understanding that within the catholic tradition the priest acts in the place of christ throughout the eucharist and in this way his actions allows the change of water and bread into blood and body as were the orthodox position is that through the invocation of the priest, the holy spirit descends upon the gifts and changes them in a way that will never be fully understood, referred to as the “divine mystery”.

which do you agree with? i say, although practising roman catholicism, i am tending towards the orthodox postion

It seems mostly the same to me. Either way it is the Body and Blood of our Lord.

 

[Phyllo]

I’ll stick with the CCC. I accept the church teachings as my own interpretation has only led me astray in the past!

Good choice. You can’t go wrong with the CCC

 

[stuartc]

This is a question regarding a rather fine point of doctrine - exactly when does the bread/wine become the Body/Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Orthodox theologians (which includes, AFAIK, Eastern Rite Catholics) believe this happens at a point in the Mass called the Epiclesis. Latin theologians believe it happens at a point in the Mass called the Anamnesis. Both Eastern and Western liturgies incorporate both, so the distinction is irrelevant to the person in the pew.

In the Latin Rite, the Epiclesis immediately preceeds the Anamnesis (and bells are rung at the Epiclesis when bells are used). The Epiclesis is the part where the priest invokes the Holy Spirit, such as: “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”

In the Latin Rite, the next sentence is the Anamnesis, which is the Greek word used the Bible for “remembrance” and recounts the enactment of the Last Supper (“On the night he was betrayed…”)

In Orthodox liturgy, the order is reversed. It begins with the Anamnesis, and concludes with the Epiclesis. But both liturgies incorporate both elements.

As far as I know, the Church has never definitively taught either viewpoint as a matter of doctrine. Any Catholic may hold either opinion. Personally I favor the Eastern position because it seems “cleaner.” The Latin position leaves me wondering - does the consecration happen at the words, “this is my Body” or “this is my Blood?” If the priest got shot after saying, “This is my Body,” would it still be Eucharist? Would the failure to consecrate the wine invalidate the Sacrament? I have no idea (the doctrine of concomotance suggests that everything is OK, but it still seems messy). The question seems messy to me, and I like things to be nice and tidy. The Eastern viewpoint offers tidiness.

But, either way, all the bases are covered.

My understanding was that the in the Roman liturgy transubstantiation occurs at the exact moment the words of institution are uttered (not the anamnesis in it’s entirety), i.e. this is my blood… so in that way the priest is taking the place of Christ, if only symbolically; whereas the Eastern understanding is that the moment of transubstantiation is at the moment of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, Epiclesis.

I agree that the Orthodox/Eastern understanding is cleaner, and personally I resent the notion that the Priest embodies Christ (if only symbolically!). If anything he embodies an Apostle, but even at that I have some worry as to how this could be further construed…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I agree that the Orthodox/Eastern understanding is cleaner, and personally I resent the notion that the Priest embodies Christ (if only symbolically!). If anything he embodies an Apostle, but even at that I have some worry as to how this could be further construed…

“In persona Christi” means that Jesus Christ (Our High Priest) uses the Priest’s hands and words to offer Himself as the Unspotted Sacrifice. It is nothing to be resentful of.

Remember the Priest says “This is MY body” and “This is MY blood.” That is because he is the ordained vessel that Jesus Christ must use to offer this Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving to OUR GOD. It is God’s Holy Will that the Priest be in “Persona Christi.”

This theology is common to both East and West. As far as the exact moment goes. Please explain when the exact moment was at the Last Supper. In the Latin Church when the Priest raises the Body and Blood of Christ at the Consecration, we can be sure it is accomplished.

 

[bmullins]

I agree with the Latin right myself, but I see the disagreement as insignificant. In both rites the Holy Spirit does the transubstantiation, through the invocation of the priest. In both the same words are used and both result in the same Eucharist.

To me it doesn’t matter when it happens, as long as it happens.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

In both the same words are used and both result in the same Eucharist.

You should be aware that certain Eastern Catholic Churches do not use the words of Institution at all. Instead they use prayers very similar to the ones Jesus used at the Last Supper, but not the words “This is my Body” etc. However their Eucharist is just as real as the Western Church’s.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As far as I know, the Church has never definitively taught either viewpoint as a matter of doctrine.

I believe this is correct. There was a thread a while back that showed evidence for the Epeclesis and Anamnesis. The Church has not provided a universal dogma to be held by both east and west on this matter to my knowledge.

 

[bmullins]

A common misconception seems to be that while the priest is working “In persona Christi” that the Holy Spirit is no longer involved. It is my understanding that in both rites the Holy Spirit still does the transubstantiation. So it boils down to, do you think the priest is serving at the Heavenly Altar of God or is Christ? Is it the priest who offers up the sacrifice for us? Or Christ?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

A common misconception seems to be that while the priest is working “In persona Christi” that the Holy Spirit is no longer involved. It is my understanding that in both rites the Holy Spirit still does the transubstantiation. So it boils down to, do you think the priest is serving at the Heavenly Altar of God or is Christ? Is it the priest who offers up the sacrifice for us? Or Christ?

In “persona Christi” is a reference to the ministerial priesthood that enables our High Priest, Jesus Christ, to offer Himself as the spotless sacrifice of Thanksgiving and Praise to the Almighty Father. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine offerings, become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our High Priest. The Sacrifice and intercession of our High Priest is the entire Mass. The Consecration is the act of the Holy Spirit.

We, in the liturgy, by God’s infinite Wisdom and kindness, are also partakers of this Sacrifice, by the addition of our own personal prayers and sacrifices that we bring to the Mass and offer to God, along with our High Priest. That is why we are called a royal priesthood.

This is the sacrifice that was made perfect and pleasing. Malachi 1: 1-11