Fully Bread Fully God

  • Thread starter Thread starter eucharisteo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eucharisteo

Guest
There is an interesting question that a non-Catholic Christian brought up about the Eucharist. I believe we know what the Catholic (Latin rite) Church teaches that it it fully Christ body, blood, soul and divinity and no longer bread or wine.

What to Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox teach on this same subject. Maybe compare and contrast would work best.

Thanks.
PAX
 
eucharisteo said:
There is an interesting question that a non-Catholic Christian brought up about the Eucharist. I believe we know what the Catholic (Latin rite) Church teaches that it it fully Christ body, blood, soul and divinity and no longer bread or wine.

What to Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox teach on this same subject. Maybe compare and contrast would work best.

Thanks.
PAX
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any difference in the Teachings on the Eucharist.
 
The Eucharist is fully Jesus Christ, but the accidental properties of bread and wine still exist. It still looks and smells like bread and wine, but it is still Jesus Christ, fully, no matter what.
 
Joe_Brown said:
The Eucharist is fully Jesus Christ, but the accidental properties of bread and wine still exist. It still looks and smells like bread and wine, but it is still Jesus Christ, fully, no matter what.
Click to expand...
This, by no means takes away anything from the Eucharist.

God Bless 👍
 
There is no difference in the belief of the Eucharist, though there is a difference in how the bread and wine are eucharisted.
 
For Latin rite Catholics I know this to be true. But what I’m asking is for an Orthodox Christian, preferably a priest or deacon, to elaborate enough to verify that this is also true in their teaching.
 
eucharisteo said:
For Latin rite Catholics I know this to be true. But what I’m asking is for an Orthodox Christian, preferably a priest or deacon, to elaborate enough to verify that this is also true in their teaching.
Click to expand...
Well several people have already answered your question. There is no difference of teaching. If you only want an answer from Eastern Orthodox clergy, then perhaps you should try a different forum since this is an Eastern Catholic forum. Though I can guarentee you they will give you the same answer that there is no difference in teaching (though they may reject the Aristotelian language associated with the western teaching on the Eucharist).
 
My Orthodox friend, a convert from a fundamentalist faith says otherwise. That’s why I’m looking for a definitive answer on the subject. He says he was taught it is still bread and wine.
 
The Orthodox Church believes that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become not only a symbol of Christ’s presence, but the real Body and Blood of Christ. This belief has been held in the Christian Church from the very beginning. Christ Himself says: ‘For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him’ (John 6:55-56).
Click to expand...
In the Eucharist not only the bread and wine are **transformed **into the Body and Blood of Christ, but also the communicant himself is transformed from an old into a new person; he is freed from the burden of sin and illumined by divine light.
Click to expand...
en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1#EUCHARIST

This is from a Russian Orthodox catechism on Met. Hilarion Alfeyev’s website. It makes no mention of bread remaining, but makes plenty of reference of it being transformed and becoming the Real Flesh and Blood of Christ.
 
eucharisteo said:
My Orthodox friend, a convert from a fundamentalist faith says otherwise. That’s why I’m looking for a definitive answer on the subject. He says he was taught it is still bread and wine.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of possibilities.
  1. Your friend is mistaken.
  2. Your friend is holding onto some of his fundamentalist beliefs.
  3. Your friend has joined a group that calls its self Orthodox when in reality they are not.
What Orthodox Church did your friend join? This can answer 1 and 3 for us.
 
My understanding is that both East (Orthodox/E. Catholics) and West (Latin-rite Catholics) believe in ‘transubstantiation’, but the Orthodox are not as legalistic (I don’t mean this in the negative sense, just that Western Christianity has adopted the ancient Roman Empire’s love for law and definition), thus they would call it a Divine Mystery and say that it somehow transforms from bread and wine into Body and Blood without getting into as much the minutiae of the hows and wherefores. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
 
nsper7 said:
My understanding is that both East (Orthodox/E. Catholics) and West (Latin-rite Catholics) believe in ‘transubstantiation’, but the Orthodox are not as legalistic (I don’t mean this in the negative sense, just that Western Christianity has adopted the ancient Roman Empire’s love for law and definition), thus they would call it a Divine Mystery and say that it somehow transforms from bread and wine into Body and Blood without getting into as much the minutiae of the hows and wherefores. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong here. Right on the spot.
 
All that Orthodoxy says is that it is truly the body and blood of Christ. It is not necessary to believe, as it is for the Roman church, that there is no longer bread and wine, nor is it necessary to believe in categories of “substance” and “accidents”. An Orthodox Christian is free to believe, along with Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus and Pope St. Gelasius, that after consecration there are in both the bread and wine two realities, one earthly (bread and wine), and one heavenly (Christ’s body and blood).
 
ByzCath said:
There are a couple of possibilities.
  1. Your friend is mistaken.
  2. Your friend is holding onto some of his fundamentalist beliefs.
  3. Your friend has joined a group that calls its self Orthodox when in reality they are not.
What Orthodox Church did your friend join? This can answer 1 and 3 for us.
Click to expand...
Antiochian Orthodox
 
Alethiaphile said:
All that Orthodoxy says is that it is truly the body and blood of Christ. It is not necessary to believe, as it is for the Roman church, that there is no longer bread and wine, nor is it necessary to believe in categories of “substance” and “accidents”. An Orthodox Christian is free to believe, along with Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus and Pope St. Gelasius, that after consecration there are in both the bread and wine two realities, one earthly (bread and wine), and one heavenly (Christ’s body and blood).
Click to expand...
Please show us where the Eastern Orthodox believe that there is still bread and wine after the Consecration.

Peace and God bless!
 
My Orthodox friend is reading “The Eucharist” as suggested by his priest.
 
eucharisteo said:
My Orthodox friend is reading “The Eucharist” as suggested by his priest.
Click to expand...
If it’s the work by Fr. Schmemann I own it and have read it; it’s part of the Diaconate formation program for the Melkite Eparchy of Newton which my friend is currently undergoing. I don’t recall anything in there that would suggest what your friend is saying, but my memory could be faulty. Could he provide a page number?

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Please show us where the Eastern Orthodox believe that there is still bread and wine after the Consecration.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
I will try to find something in writing in a few days. I don’t have all my books available to me at this moment. I have specifically heard what I said both from my local Orthodox priest and from other Orthodox Christians, but I know my saying that won’t be convincing to you.

Let me make clear, because you have already phrased this is a somewhat misleading way: I said it was permissible for an Orthodox Christian to believe that the Eucharist is both Christ’s body and blood, and still also bread and wine. I didn’t say it that it was defined that way, and that all Orthodox were required to believe that way. I said that an Orthodox could believe that and still be Orthodox. As I have said, and many Orthodox Christians have said, many times, the Orthodox Church has never tried to define the exact nature of the change that takes place in the Eucharist.
Of course, the most important truth about the Eucharist is that the gifts do actually become the body and blood of Christ. But there is no reason why this change necessarily means that the substance of the bread and wine must disappear, just as Christ could be both God and Man at the same time.

Joe
 
Ghosty said:
Please show us where the Eastern Orthodox believe that there is still bread and wine after the Consecration.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Here is one place.

The Byzantines understood the Eucharistic bread to be necessarily consubstantial woth humanity, while Latin medieval piety emphasized its otherworldliness. The use of ordinary bread, identical with the bread used as everyday food, was the sign of true Incarnation. The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance- the Body of Christ- but viewed the bread as the “type” of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ.

John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, pp 204-205.

This selection is quoted with approval in Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian by Jordan Bajis, a primer to Orthodox theology, well-respected in American Orthodox circles. Bajis states:

Eastern Christianity does not define the Eucharistic elements as the body of Christ in the manner of medieval scholasticism. It does not see the bread and wine as being disintegrated and then replaced with the material body and blood of Christ. Christ is not in a “house of bread”. The Eastern Church, however, does see the bread and wine as symbols which speak of His presence in this matter-world in which we live. The Eucharistic elements “contain” creationb, life (food), and humanity, all that this world is made up of. In these elements, the Eastern Christian believes Chjrist can and does manifest Himself. John Meyendorff outlines this Eastern understanding… [selection above]. Christ’s incarnation makes it clear that matter and spirit are compatible. Christ’s resurrected body also makes clear that Spirit can transfigure matter. Christ took on our humanity, united it to His divinity, and raised it from the grave. In His rising, Christi’s humanity was transfigured and glorified. Because of Christ’s union with us, every believer’s humanity is likewise promised glorification. pp. 200-201

This is the essential point: in the Eucharist the bread and wine become transfigured into the Body and Blood of Christ, in a way analogous to Christ’s resurrrection. At His resurrection, Christ did not lose his humanity or His human body, they were glorified and transfigured. The eucharistic elements do not cease being bread and wine, they become glorified with Christ’s presence. Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top