Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[JonNC]

Yes, Orthodox Christians believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They do not typically think in terms of transubstantiation, because transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysical concepts which are not too frequently used in Orthodoxy theology (the talk about essences and accidents).

John of Damascus:
"The bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of God. If you ask how it is done, let it suffice for you to hear that it is done through the Holy Spirit, just as it was through the Holy Spirit that the Lord himself took on flesh for himself from the blessed mother of God. More than this we do not know: the word of God is true and effective and omnipotent, but the manner in which this is done cannot be searched out."



Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;8674289]
You don’t think that science (at least those scientists who already dispute religion) doesn’t also view Catholic real presence in the same way? Do you really think they are impressed by the claim of a change in substance while the accidents remain?

Hi Jon good to find you here

No, the definition applies to all those who oppose the true presence. If the intellectual is sincere transub. helps them to begin faith.

We defend the real presence in the only way we know how: Christ’s promise to us in His own words, “this is my body…”.

To whom are you defending the real presence? Do you really think, Excerpts from the liturgy or scripture to a **non-christian **intellectual will help you?

I am informed that Eienstein was fascinated and always sought out priests to learn more about Transubstantiation and the Eucharist, that he would make time out of his schedule just to entertain or visit with Catholic priests.

and BTW, I give thanks to God that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the Bishops of Holy Orthodoxy, and the leaders of Lutheranism, and all others who discern His words, for their defense of the truth of the real presence

.

This is good, but it was to the secular world that the Church gave them Transubstantiation. What did the Orthodox or Luther give the world in defense of the true presence?

It isn’t a matter of denying Transub., Gabe. It is the view of a lack of need for it, as if Christ’s words on the matter were not sufficient. I stand with Luther when he says that drinking mere wine with the Swiss is not an option, but Transubstantiation with the pope is

.

Those who believe in the true presence may not see a need for the definition. But those little ones who need help with coming to faith in the true presence “transubstantiation” begins their faith.

The Church through transubstantiation obeyed the scripture, when the secular world came against the Catholic’s Eucharistic faith with; 1Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,

Lutheranism or Orthodoxy may not have a need to defend the apostolic faith against secular powers and principalities, but these have always sought out Popes and bishops to discredit or remove the Christian faith from the people.

There maybe a difference between maintaining ones Christian faith and defending ones Christian faith in the way of viewing when a need is required. Such as a Church council or the Pope speaking ex-cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) to the world.

Happy advent to you also

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;8674460]Hi Jon good to find you here

No, the definition applies to all those who oppose the true presence. If the intellectual is sincere transub. helps them to begin faith.

I certainly wouldn’t deny that possibility.

To whom are you defending the real presence? Do you really think, Excerpts from the liturgy or scripture to a **non-christian **intellectual will help you?

Touche. I suspect we stand together in this way.

I am informed that Eienstein was fascinated and always sought out priests to learn more about Transubstantiation and the Eucharist, that he would make time out of his schedule just to entertain or visit with Catholic priests.

This would not surprise me.

This is good, but it was to the secular world that the Church gave them Transubstantiation. What did the Orthodox or Luther give the world in defense of the true presence?

It seems to me that the more we stand together regarding His real presence, regardless of how we chhose to express it, the greater the defense is before the world. Do you not believe that there are those who have come to faith in the Orthodox and Lutheran communions, believing in the RP, yet not knowing of the CC doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Those who believe in the true presence may not see a need for the definition. But those little ones who need help with coming to faith in the true presence “transubstantiation” begins their faith.

And for those whose faith has been aided by it, I thank God.

The Church through transubstantiation obeyed the scripture, when the secular world came against the Catholic’s Eucharistic faith with; 1Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,

And to the extent that we talk about Sacramental Union, we do the same.

Lutheranism or Orthodoxy may not have a need to defend the apostolic faith against secular powers and principalities, but these have always sought out Popes and bishops to discredit or remove the Christian faith from the people.

Oh, but we do have defend it.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

John of Damascus:
"The bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of God. If you ask how it is done, let it suffice for you to hear that it is done through the Holy Spirit, just as it was through the Holy Spirit that the Lord himself took on flesh for himself from the blessed mother of God. More than this we do not know: the word of God is true and effective and omnipotent, but the manner in which this is done cannot be searched out."



Jon

John of Damascus was 8th century, Here is St Cyril of Jerusalem (300±a.d) giving his definition of Transubstantiation

"Wherefore with full assurance let us partake of the Body and Blood of Christ; for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with him…Thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature (1Pet.1:4)…

…Having Learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ.… Catechesis, 22:9 MG 33, 1104, MpNF VII, 152

Now the Popes definition of Transubstantiation; After the words of Consecration the substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus, although the bread and wine are those to the senses, or as St.Cyril puts his definition "bread, though sensible to taste…wine, though the taste will have it so. Both St. Cyril and the Pope profess that these are the body and blood of Christ.

I would challenge you to compare St. Cyrils definition of the Eucharist and the Popes definition of transubstantiation. There is no difference of meaning and no change what so ever in faith of how this mystery is made visible to our senses and made real to our souls, which transubstantiation points to.

 

[Hesychios]

It isn’t a matter of denying Transub., Gabe. It is the view of a lack of need for it, as if Christ’s words on the matter were not sufficient.

Excellent point.

It serves no useful purpose beyond what Christ has already told us, but it does serve as another unneeded excuse to condemn people.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see both sides of the debate. I say Blessed are those who do believe and have no need for extensive explaination’s. Which reminds me of another thread, and the existence of God. We would do well here also to believe and walk in the truth of blind faith, and in fact I would bet many of us followed this path early in life…or not.

Yet how do we answer these question’s with such inquiring minds today? Would it be the better to say, it just is. because it is. Thus when you arrive at where we are, we shall continue the dialogue. Or would the in-depth philosophy found in Plato, Aristotle, Socrates or even Descartes or St Thomas Aquina’s from later on prove to be of value?

I would say most of us talking here at the moment would have no desire to trudge through the discourse of Platos Republic. Especially on the internet. However, the points made are none the less valid. And if one of these who carefully studied philosophy for their lives work, and found a truth? Then surely, what they have done in Gods Kingdom is of value.

And should truth be used to condemn, then again I would digress to Plato on justice and injustice.

Lets face it you can scroll right here today and find a 1000-post dialogue on the Real Presence. So in truth their are just some who want this explained through that painfull process. And in the end they still are not going to believe because they already are convinced they arrived here “correct” with Gods “real” truth. And there we find many stumped on Biblical understanding, never mind philosophy. Not to change the subject but for the sake of understanding. If I say…John-20 off the top of my head.

“As the father has sent me, so I send you”

Then Christ breathed on the Apostles and said…

“Receive the Holy Spirit. if you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven, if you hold them bound, they are held bound”

What just happened their? Maybe I misunderstood this or the english translation is incorrect. But I do believe you need to be in an Apostolic Church. And the truth is. if your not in one, I sincerely believe from the bottom of my heart you ought to pick one. Since we have several variations at the moment it should accommodate everyone, somewhere, somehow.

Which relates back to the OT in Levitucus 5. I’d say its pretty elementary. You simply must go to the church, to the priest, or your not forgiven. And thats been the truth since Christ. Thus the eucharist. But thats another conversation for another day. The point is we have a major problem with the truth.

Now you could spend from now to next century in explaination of “why” you need to attend confession/communion. For I assure you, there are “millions” who truly believe all they need to do is pray and all is well in Christs Kingdom. In fact they believe we’re crazy and border line cult.

I would say if you made it to this point of actually believing in the RP, your doing pretty well. However, as with Judas we see that even all those who broke bread with GOD didn’t make it. Without a doubt theres a lesson their also. So I say, there’s much work to be done and many snares to avoid. How one can possibly do this without the RP? Well, thats over my head for this thread.

Just Sayin,

Peace

 

[Elijahmaria]

ElijahMaria…

Good point…Orthodox Catholics…

Now how do they accept this???

Mileage varies

In the main it is appreciated. I only know one Internet contributor in Orthodoxy who would slam it back on us and declare that we are not but they are.

The main impetus for me is that we are called to recognize Orthodoxy as something far closer to us in more ways than any other group of separated brethren.

Sure you’ll get dozens of shadings of a multiplicity of primary perspectives: but the fact remains our Orthodox Catholic brothers and sisters do not number among the non-Catholic, and are not treated that way by our Holy Father, nor were they treated that way by Blessed John Paul II. So how can we do less?

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, sort of, except that the synod of Jerusalem condemns the idea of ‘impanation’ (literally the idea that Christ becomes incarnate in the bread), which is likely a reference to consubstantiation. We also have to look at what is said in the Liturgy, like what the priest says during the epiclesis: “Make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ, And that which is in this Cup, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ, Changing by Thy Holy Spirit.” Certainly, I would say that it leans closer to the idea that the gifts are becoming something that they were not, rather than the idea that Christ is coming to dwell in the bread and wine (as Consubstantiation would imply).

The Council of Jerusalem is, however, a local council. Additionally it was attended largely by Western Educated men who tended to use the language of the West. I don’t say this to mean it was unimportant, simply that it is not the final word.

Additionally I can’t say I see how consubstantiation necessarily implies that Christ is coming to dwell in the bread.

 

[Nine_Two]

John of Damascus:
"The bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of God. If you ask how it is done, let it suffice for you to hear that it is done through the Holy Spirit, just as it was through the Holy Spirit that the Lord himself took on flesh for himself from the blessed mother of God. More than this we do not know: the word of God is true and effective and omnipotent, but the manner in which this is done cannot be searched out."



Jon

An excellent quote that sums up the Orthodox position.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t say I see how consubstantiation necessarily implies that Christ is coming to dwell in the bread.

Your right

Well, here’s the catch, consubstantiation of the Eucharist is from “Berengarius”, then picked up later by Luther and Wyclif, basically its a heresy. Its an attempt to define the RP of Christ in the Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation, teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change/consecration of the elect through Apostolic Succession of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Which in truth is what the EO believes.

And this for example has been witnessed in real time, and most recently, with the Eucharist literally bleeding Christs blood.

Berengarius maintained that the consecrated Bread, while retaining its substance, is the Body of Christ, however, not losing anything which it was, but assuming something which it was not.

The CC and without question your Church truly believes, and is in fact correct that through the Apostolic Tradition handed down by Christ through “Altus Christus” that the ordained are in fact empowered by Christ through the HS to make the literal change from Bread to Body of Christ, and from Wine to Blood of Christ. Thus the consubstantiation theory on its own is in fact a heresy. Thus once the Bread/Wine is consecrated by the elect it is no longer bread and wine, it is the Body and Blood “literally” And its not only correctly defined by the CC it in fact has been proven through witnessed Miracles many, many times. Most recently in the USA when the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe was taken to 50 states for healing of abortion. There were so many Miracles witnessed a book could be done on that tour alone. And one was the Eucharist literally bleeding as the Priest consecrated it and held it up in the air, which was filmed.

Peace

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;8674557]John of Damascus was 8th century, Here is St Cyril of Jerusalem (300±a.d) giving his definition of Transubstantiation

"Wherefore with full assurance let us partake of the Body and Blood of Christ; for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with him…Thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature (1Pet.1:4)…

…Having Learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ.… Catechesis, 22:9 MG 33, 1104, MpNF VII, 152

The thing is, Gabe, I as a Lutheran can confess this too. In fact, Melanchthon references St. Cyril in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession regarding the Supper. This here speaks of the mystery - while our senses perceive bread, it is His body!

Now the Popes definition of Transubstantiation; After the words of Consecration the substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus, although the bread and wine are those to the senses, or as St.Cyril puts his definition "bread, though sensible to taste…wine, though the taste will have it so. Both St. Cyril and the Pope profess that these are the body and blood of Christ.

If you leave it with what St. Cyril says, there is no disagreement between us. None at all!!!

I would challenge you to compare St. Cyrils definition of the Eucharist and the Popes definition of transubstantiation. There is no difference of meaning and no change what so ever in faith of how this mystery is made visible to our senses and made real to our souls, which transubstantiation points to.

Where does St. Cyril speak in terms of substances and accidents?

Gabe, if Catholics want to use metaphysics to express the real presence, that fine. But to dogmatically define it, it seems unnecessary. And to be honest, I would admit the same about Sacramental Union.

St. Cyril, IMO, says no more than John of Damascus. They are saying the same thing, as did Melanchthon in the Apology.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Excellent point.

It serves no useful purpose beyond what Christ has already told us, but it does serve as another unneeded excuse to condemn people.

Hi Michael,

I don’t know about it being an excuse to condemn, but I certainly see its dogmatic declaration as having the unfortunate effect of dividing us further. I honestly see the Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran expressions of the Eucharist as being distinctions that lack a difference. And I am also sure that there are Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans who would disagree with me.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

An excellent quote that sums up the Orthodox position.

The Lutheran position, too.

Jon

 

[Cavaradossi]

The thing is, Gabe, I as a Lutheran can confess this too. In fact, Melanchthon references St. Cyril in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession regarding the Supper. This here speaks of the mystery - while our senses perceive bread, it is His body!

If you leave it with what St. Cyril says, there is no disagreement between us. None at all!!!

Where does St. Cyril speak in terms of substances and accidents?

Gabe, if Catholics want to use metaphysics to express the real presence, that fine. But to dogmatically define it, it seems unnecessary. And to be honest, I would admit the same about Sacramental Union.

St. Cyril, IMO, says no more than John of Damascus. They are saying the same thing, as did Melanchthon in the Apology.

Jon

That is essentially the objection most Orthodox would have with transubstantiation. The idea is ok, but making it into a dogma is unnecessary because then it necessitates the assumption that Aristotle’s metaphysics forms the actual framework for reality, which is a truly crazy assumption. I always found it to be a strange double standard that Catholics will take digs at Lutherans for not believing in transubstantiation, but give a free pass to the apostolic churches which all confess the same thing as most confessional Lutherans do: the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

 

[KathleenGee]

With that in mind…how much more I wish we be at one table…

 

[Elijahmaria]

With that in mind…how much more I wish we be at one table…

Same Eucharist: Distinct Tables



I am so happy to have met you here.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Where does St. Cyril speak in terms of substances and accidents?

St. Cyril describes precisely what is meant when speaking of substance and accidents. Why should he need to use the terms substance and accident if he already has it developed in words that are clear.

There are many ways to formulate precisely the same idea or truth. Some words are simple or common and informal; other words are more formal and parse complex ideas behind the simple truth.

Did we really need the Christological and Trinitarian forumlas to tell the simple truths of Scripture?

Apparently.

Seems the same is necessary for Eucharist truth as well…historically speaking.

 

[Ghosty]

The Council of Jerusalem is, however, a local council. Additionally it was attended largely by Western Educated men who tended to use the language of the West. I don’t say this to mean it was unimportant, simply that it is not the final word.

Additionally I can’t say I see how consubstantiation necessarily implies that Christ is coming to dwell in the bread.

Consubstantiation is, by definition, Christ dwelling in the bread. The language of the Fathers and the Liturgy doesn’t really permit such a view. We can say that it’s best not to dogmatize the language of what happens in the Eucharist, but it is equally true that some views simply aren’t supported by the Tradition.

The only reason that consubstantiation might be taken as a valid view in Eastern Orthodoxy is precisely because the language of substance and accidents is not used. In light of this there are expressions of the Orthodox teaching that say things about the bread remaining, but it is clear in context that this is referring to what the Latins call accidents.

We also shouldn’t be so quick to write off the Council of Jerusalem just for being a “local council”. It is the only Orthodox council of any kind to deal directly with the claims of Protestantism, and remains the most authoritative source for such teachings. The fact that it firmly rejects Consubstantiation should not be easily glossed over. Here is specifically what it said on the subject:

In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. 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.

It is clear that they were renouncing what is called consubstantiation.

So while consubstantiation hasn’t been defined against by what the Eastern Orthodox would consider an Ecumenical Council, it was rejected by a fairly weighty Synod, and with pretty clear words. Remember that neither the Filioque nor Papal Infallibility have been rejected by an Orthodox Ecumenical Council, either.

So while we might find Orthodox who believe in consubstantiation, it is certainly not the norm, nor is this view easily supported by Orthodox Patrimony and Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

Consubstantiation is, by definition, Christ dwelling in the bread. The language of the Fathers and the Liturgy doesn’t really permit such a view. We can say that it’s best not to dogmatize the language of what happens in the Eucharist, but it is equally true that some views simply aren’t supported by the Tradition.

The only reason that consubstantiation might be taken as a valid view in Eastern Orthodoxy is precisely because the language of substance and accidents is not used. In light of this there are expressions of the Orthodox teaching that say things about the bread remaining, but it is clear in context that this is referring to what the Latins call accidents.

We also shouldn’t be so quick to write off the Council of Jerusalem just for being a “local council”. It is the only Orthodox council of any kind to deal directly with the claims of Protestantism, and remains the most authoritative source for such teachings. The fact that it firmly rejects Consubstantiation should not be easily glossed over. Here is specifically what it said on the subject:

It is clear that they were renouncing what is called consubstantiation.

So while consubstantiation hasn’t been defined against by what the Eastern Orthodox would consider an Ecumenical Council, it was rejected by a fairly weighty Synod, and with pretty clear words. Remember that neither the Filioque nor Papal Infallibility have been rejected by an Orthodox Ecumenical Council, either.

So while we might find Orthodox who believe in consubstantiation, it is certainly not the norm, nor is this view easily supported by Orthodox Patrimony and Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

I didn’t write off the Council of Jerusalem. I said it shouldn’t be taken as the final word. I specifically said that to make clear I wasn’t writing it off.

The fact of the matter is Orthodoxy doesn’t delve as deep into what the Real Presence is with that one anomalous exception. The Catholic desire to impose its own beliefs on us is quite a fascinating one, and I’d be curious to hear what a shrink would say on the matter.

As Cavaradossi commented, you take Lutherans and other Protestants who believe in Real Presence to task on this matter but immediatly give us a pass.

 

[Ghosty]

I didn’t write off the Council of Jerusalem. I said it shouldn’t be taken as the final word. I specifically said that to make clear I wasn’t writing it off.

The fact of the matter is Orthodoxy doesn’t delve as deep into what the Real Presence is with that one anomalous exception. The Catholic desire to impose its own beliefs on us is quite a fascinating one, and I’d be curious to hear what a shrink would say on the matter.

As Cavaradossi commented, you take Lutherans and other Protestants who believe in Real Presence to task on this matter but immediatly give us a pass.

I don’t see anyone being taken to task or given a pass here. What’s more, I’m speaking from an Eastern perspective, not a Latin one, and I’m defending our tradition that the bread and wine become Christ wholly and entirely.

Describe it however you want, or refuse to describe it in pious awe at the Mystery, but you can’t really point to some long tradition in the East of believing that the bread and wine remain. If you can find the Fathers, the prayers, the centuries of catechesis from the East that suggests that bread and wine remain then by all means present it; I’ve certainly never seen anything to support such a notion, and so I view consubstantiation or “impanation” as a novelty that is not supported at all by Eastern tradition.

I thought we were the ones who look first to the tradition handed down to us rather than quibbling over what is “technically permissible” according to Ecumenical Councils. I’m basing my judgement on the nature of Eucharist on this tradition alone, not on some technicalities of what has and hasn’t been Ecumenically defined, or on the language being used.

So again I challenge you to produce something from our tradition that supports consubstantiation or impanation. Without that we really can’t claim that they’re truly Orthodox expressions.

Peace and God bless!