Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[FrKimel]

I find a conflict of interest between Orthodox and Lutheran theology of sacraments. How these two can qualify as both being in agreement as to the same when Lutherans sacraments are invalid and Orthodox are valid sacraments

The question of validity is irrelevant to the question "Do Orthodox and Catholics agree on the real presence? or “Do Orthodox and Lutherans agree on the eucharistic transformation?” (and other questions like this). Nor does validity in Catholic theology function as you seem to think. If it did, there would be no ecumenical discussions between the Catholic Church and other churches on the Eucharist: see, e.g., the Lutheran/Catholic agreement on the Holy Eucharist and the Anglican/Catholic agreement on the Eucharist. These agreements may not enjoy authoritative status in the Catholic Church (and indeed have been criticized on various points by the CDF), but they do tell us something about how Catholic theology interprets and applies the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

You are the first poster to invent the term “scholastic theory”? Please confirm what a scholastic theory is as compared to the Eucharist?

Actually, I didn’t invent the term. Sir Anthony Kenny did.

Kenny makes a critical point germane to the present discussion. If he is right, the scholastic theologians who began to employ the substance/accident distinction to speak of the eucharistic change did not understand “substance” as the underlying, invisible reality of a thing; substance, rather, simply is that individual thing. Hence to say that the substance of the bread and wine has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is synonymous to saying that the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood.

Theology, by anyone university or theological opinions do not dictate nor can it discount what is believed by the faithful these past 2000 years in the true presence of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

This is of course true. Who is saying otherwise? But the Catholic Church is well aware that its dogmas and doctrines need to be interpreted; hence the high respect it accords its theologians.

Your commentary has only replaced Transubstantiation with a vast number of terms and definitions that do not contradict with what has transubstantiated from bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I presented the citations from the Orthodox/Lutheran dialogue to provide an example of how Orthodox theologians presently approach the question of the eucharistic change. The OP wanted to know if Orthodox and Catholics agree on the real presence.

When Catholics read the Lutheran/Orthodox “agreement” (which only represents the views of the respective participants), do they see significant disagreement between the Orthodox and Catholic Church? I suspect that very traditional Catholics might have some real problems with the Orthodox statement but that most contemporary Catholic theologians would not.

What is the purpose to compete with theology and terms to define what is already believed “A Change of substance has taken place” either by Transubstantiation, or by the many vast terms, theology and definitions that try and get your interpretation to arrive at what Transubstantiation simply arrives at " A change has occurred".

The Orthodox Church has her own ways of speaking about the Eucharist. She is not obligated to employ Latin terminology or conceptuality.

Transmutation is never a Catholic teaching in the Eucharist. The definition is Transubstantiation.

I know enough about Catholic eucharistic theology to know that Catholic theologians are happy to use all sorts of terms, in addition to “transubstantiation,” to speak of the eucharistic change. Moreover, they are not content to remain within the scholastic categories of St Thomas Aquinas to interpret transubstantiation. A good example of such reflection may be found in the pre-papal days of Joseph Ratzinger:

What has always mattered to the Church is that a real transformation takes place here. Something genuinely happens in the Eucharist. There is something new there that was not before. Knowing about a transformation is part of the most basic eucharistic faith. Therefore it cannot be the case that the Body of Christ comes to add itself to the bread, as if bread and Body were two similar things that could exist as two “substances,” in the same way, side by side. Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens. When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different. (God is Near Us [2001], pp. 85-86

This is a different way of thinking about transubstantiation than is found in Aquinas, for example. Ratzinger appeals to the notion of incorporation into the glorified body of Christ to explain the eucharistic transformation. Orthodox theologians, who might otherwise by unsympathetic to Transubstantiation, might well find themselves nodding in agreement.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

“This is a different way of thinking about transubstantiation than is found in Aquinas, for example. Ratzinger appeals to the notion of incorporation into the glorified body of Christ to explain the eucharistic transformation. Orthodox theologians, who might otherwise by unsympathetic to Transubstantiation, might well find themselves nodding in agreement.”

Might I politely suggest that ‘Ratzinger’ is a most impolite way of addressing our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI? Please refer to him by his proper title. It is less offensive that way.

 

[FrKimel]

“This is a different way of thinking about transubstantiation than is found in Aquinas, for example. Ratzinger appeals to the notion of incorporation into the glorified body of Christ to explain the eucharistic transformation. Orthodox theologians, who might otherwise by unsympathetic to Transubstantiation, might well find themselves nodding in agreement.”

Might I politely suggest that ‘Ratzinger’ is a most impolite way of addressing our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI? Please refer to him by his proper title. It is less offensive that way.

My apologies. Did not mean to offend. It’s difficult to know how to speak of Pope Benedict in the days before he became Pope Benedict. In my defense, let me simply note that it is not uncommon for Catholic theologians to use “Ratzinger” to name the author of the pre-papal writings of the Holy Father. No disrespect is intended by this usage, and it has the advantage of acknowledging that Pope Benedict’s pre-papal views represent only the opinions of a Catholic theologian. Similarly, St Thomas Aquinas is often referred to simply as “Aquinas,” without intimating in any way that he is not a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

“This is a different way of thinking about transubstantiation than is found in Aquinas, for example. Ratzinger appeals to the notion of incorporation into the glorified body of Christ to explain the eucharistic transformation. Orthodox theologians, who might otherwise by unsympathetic to Transubstantiation, might well find themselves nodding in agreement.”

Might I politely suggest that ‘Ratzinger’ is a most impolite way of addressing our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI? Please refer to him by his proper title. It is less offensive that way.

It seems to be standard when referring to worlds written before he became pope to refer to pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger or then Cardinal Ratzinger, or some variant thereof. I’m sure no offense is intended.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;9007044]The same way, my friend Gabe, that Catholics and Lutherans have come to levels of agreement regarding the Sacrament

.

Hi JonNC good to speak with again I understand the level of terminology that draws an understanding of a change taking place. This change is what is agreed upon, but this agreement of the change is what reaches into dialogue in terms described differently.

The point I make deals with “Faith”. Because Orthodox and Lutherans agree to terms relating to a change, can Lutherans and Orthodox both partake of the same communion species?

Can a Lutheran confect an Orthodox’s Eucharist because they both agree on same terminology of change?

Before you go there, it is true “SOME” Orthodox refuse communion with the Pope, but the Pope does not refuse Communion with these. In all Truth Other Orthodox with the same liturgy remain in full communion with the Popes. Others are coming into or have come into communion with the Popes.

One rejecting another communion is not the same as an invalid communion. Man has no authority of separating What God has joined together.

And some Orthodox question the validity of Catholic orders and sacraments. Why would this invalidate discussion and agreement on ever-growing levels? ISTM that these agreements, as they are not compromise, shoould be received with thanksgiving.

Jon

Men in the Orthodox may question the validity of Catholic sacraments. When the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are unchanged supported by apostolic Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is what makes them valid in practice not men saying they are not. The proof has to be proved by the accusser making the false accusations what God has joined together.

These differences of opinions is what we are discussing now. I don’t question the ecumenical efforts. What I question here is the Orthodox shifting its position to a protestant view of the Eucharist and neglecting the Early Church Fathers view from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture of a real presence expressed and practiced in Catholic faith.

I find it troubling that the Orthodox would venture outside of the sacramental economy to justify it’s terminology and agreeing to a protestant view of the Eucharist.

Peace be with you Jon

 

[JonNC]

.

Hi JonNC good to speak with again I understand the level of terminology that draws an understanding of a change taking place. This change is what is agreed upon, but this agreement of the change is what reaches into dialogue in terms described differently.

The point I make deals with “Faith”. Because Orthodox and Lutherans agree to terms relating to a change, can Lutherans and Orthodox both partake of the same communion species?

Can a Lutheran confect an Orthodox’s Eucharist because they both agree on same terminology of change?

Before you go there, it is true “SOME” Orthodox refuse communion with the Pope, but the Pope does not refuse Communion with these. In all Truth Other Orthodox with the same liturgy remain in full communion with the Popes. Others are coming into or have come into communion with the Popes.

One rejecting another communion is not the same as an invalid communion. Man has no authority of separating What God has joined together.

Men in the Orthodox may question the validity of Catholic sacraments. When the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are unchanged supported by apostolic Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is what makes them valid in practice not men saying they are not. The proof has to be proved by the accusser making the false accusations what God has joined together.

These differences of opinions is what we are discussing now. I don’t question the ecumenical efforts. What I question here is the Orthodox shifting its position to a protestant view of the Eucharist and neglecting the Early Church Fathers view from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture of a real presence expressed and practiced in Catholic faith.
I find it troubling that the Orthodox would venture outside of the sacramental economy to justify it’s terminology and agreeing to a protestant view of the Eucharist.

Peace be with you Jon

And also with you, Gabe.

On the bolded, do you also find it troubling that Catholic theologians have come to see our understandings of the change are not such that they should be Church - dividing? The Lutheran/Catholic statement is even more converging in its assessment than the Orthodox/Lutheran one.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FrKimel;9007248]The question of validity is irrelevant to the question "Do Orthodox and Catholics agree on the real presence? or “Do Orthodox and Lutherans agree on the eucharistic transformation?” (and other questions like this). Nor does validity in Catholic theology function as you seem to think. If it did, there would be no ecumenical discussions between the Catholic Church and other churches on the Eucharist: These agreements may not enjoy authoritative status in the Catholic Church (and indeed have been criticized on various points by the CDF), but they do tell us something about how Catholic theology interprets and applies the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church

.

The question of validity is crucial in all final analysis and is relevant to the OP. You have introduced a non valid Eucharist to agree with your own valid Eucharist. I hate to see the look at the faces of the Early Church Fathers viewing your position here.

It is never whether or not if a Orthodox or Catholic person does not agree on the real presence. What constitutes the Real presence is the valid sacrament, never what the priest believes, but God by his divine power makes it so… Orthodox can say not valid till their blue in the face… there opinion never disqualifies a valid sacred sacrament.

That is why the wisdom of the Popes recognizes all Eastern Catholics and Orthodox sacraments are valid, because not even the Pope can invalidate a valid baptism.

How Orthodox pretend to be superhumans and can “think” they can discount a valid sacrament when it is God who joined these, reveals pride of men, or ? Other.

Actually, I didn’t invent the term. Sir Anthony Kenny did.

You still haven’t produced an example of what a scholastic theory is pertaining to the Eucharist? Does this make him right? No offense Sir Anthony Kenny but you are wrong.

Kenny makes a critical point germane to the present discussion. If he is right, the scholastic theologians who began to employ the substance/accident distinction to speak of the eucharistic change did not understand “substance” as the underlying, invisible reality of a thing; substance, rather, simply is that individual thing. Hence to say that the substance of the bread and wine has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is synonymous to saying that the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood.

No wonder kenny’ opinion is wrong, he invented his own theory here, because it is not Catholic theology. Poor kenny “thinks” he is explaining the Church’s understanding of “substance” by wrongly implying that the Church is defining a mystery here when she never does. I almost want to laugh here, but I sense the sincerety of the misdrawn conclusions.

When are you Orthodox gonna learn? scholasticsm is a teaching discipline not a doctrine. How you get scholasticism as being a theory, when even in the court of law scholastic disciplines are practiced. When and where it becomes a theory is beyond my understandings.

Your commentators opinion lacks “Substance” and “Reality” when dealing with the Eucharistic change defined by the Catholic Church. The Substance and Reality of the Catholic church’s definition described cannot be measured this is the Reality that the Catholic Church uses to define substance. Your commenatators invention of substance and theories can be measured. Therefore can never measure up to the Catholic Church’s definition of reality and substance. Good try though:thumbsup:

cont’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FrKimel; But the Catholic Church is well aware that its dogmas and doctrines need to be interpreted; hence the high respect it accords its theologians.

NO,no The Catholic Church allows freedom for scholars, scientific communities, theologians to investigate and continue in defining doctrinal terms in ways that new languages and peoples can understand them, so as not to repeat another reformation period. In other words keep the church up with the times. But Apostolic doctrines and dogmas can never change from their substance. They can dig deeper in knowledge and understanding but they cannot be changed.

If the Church needs to define a doctrine, she does so, because the Apostolic revelations, Sacred Scripture, or Sacred Tradition has come under attack.

I presented the citations from the Orthodox/Lutheran dialogue to provide an example of how Orthodox theologians presently approach the question of the eucharistic change. The OP wanted to know if Orthodox and Catholics agree on the real presence.

Yes since apostolic times both the East and West have believed in faith in the blessed Sacrament “mystery” of the real presence. “Some” Orthodox only object to the definition of the Change, but both agree that the real presence of Jesus body and blood are present in the Eucharist.

When Catholics read the Lutheran/Orthodox “agreement” (which only represents the views of the respective participants), do they see significant disagreement between the Orthodox and Catholic Church? I suspect that very traditional Catholics might have some real problems with the Orthodox statement but that most contemporary Catholic theologians would not.

I raised my opposition deals with a valid Eucharist not the terminology being expressed. Now if either Orthodox or Lutherans have bread and wine existing along side with the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, when their change occurs, then I will be the first to side with the Catholic Church and the Early Church Fathers to oppose such a heresy.

The Orthodox Church has her own ways of speaking about the Eucharist. She is not obligated to employ Latin terminology or conceptuality.

Thank you, but no definition exists that agrees with the Early Church Fathers and describes the Change of substance more accurately than simple Transubstantiation. So I would not be inclined to adopt a book of terms trying to define the Change of substance in the Eucharist from any Orthodox, because Transubstantiation suffices that a change has taken place.

This is a different way of thinking about transubstantiation than is found in Aquinas, for example. Ratzinger appeals to the notion of incorporation into the glorified body of Christ to explain the eucharistic transformation. Orthodox theologians, who might otherwise by unsympathetic to Transubstantiation, might well find themselves nodding in agreement.

If you apply the definition to both St.Thomas Aquainas and then Cardinal Ratzinger regarding substance and reality in the way the Church defines them, the “Faith” of the two being expressed never faltars of the True presence.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And also with you, Gabe.

On the bolded, do you also find it troubling that Catholic theologians have come to see our understandings of the change are not such that they should be Church - dividing? The Lutheran/Catholic statement is even more converging in its assessment than the Orthodox/Lutheran one.

Jon

At the risk of proselytizing, I am of the opinion the Orthodox are reaching out to Lutheran doctrine to find commonality which is a positive venture. This ecumenical effort should continue.

But Lutherans; according to the Orthodox opinion, “come from Catholicism and are a Catholics problem, not an Orthodox problem”.

That said; Lutherans are very close to Catholics as our faith’s mirror one another in practice and Tradition. Yet by validity of sacraments both Catholics and Orthodox share these in common.

The true presence in terminology and understanding between Catholics and Lutherans reveal common ground set in stone to begin a path of communion which we have not arrived yet officially. I have witnessed in my lifetime that Lutherans partaking of holy communion during a Catholic wedding Mass. The priest informed those in attendance "if you are Catholic and you believe this Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Jesus Christ then you are welcome to partake of communion. ALL the Lutherans partook of Holy Communion.

I don’t know if any one has witnessed Catholics partaking of communion in a Lutheran service? But these are side bar issues dealing with disciplines.

Although we both believe that the bread and wine “have changed” and are truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ we share a spiritual communion in the body of Christ, because Lutherans hold to a True presence as we Catholics do, this binds us in faith in the body of Christ. You know as well as I do, there are more obstacles to overcome to the Lutheran interpretations from the objections of the Apostolic Catholic faith.

As far as validity is concerned, becomes a subject of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture which the Catholic Church cannot change, she is bound to this Apostolic deposit of faith.

The terminology described by Lutherans today in the true presence, reveals a faith and not an objection to the true presence. The objection arises to Transubstantiation by Lutherans, but when exegisis is applied today of true transubstantiation to Lutherans we find common ground expressing faith in the change in the bread and wine substance.

It remains to be seen whether or not Lutherans as a whole community, will come back into full communion with the Catholic Church, or become like the Orthodox and maintain their status as an independent “autocephalous” Church. This subject is too huge to discusss here but with God it is not impossible.

Personally I don’t see much difference from our communions, just the validity keeps our communions apart. There is much more to add to this discussion Jon, and I hope we will as time goes on… and look foward to the day when we can share communions together. Sometimes efforts like this need to begin at the grass roots like here.

 

[FrKimel]

. You still haven’t produced an example of what a scholastic theory is pertaining to the Eucharist? Does this make him right? No offense Sir Anthony Kenny but you are wrong. No wonder kenny’ opinion is wrong, he invented his own theory here, because it is not Catholic theology. Poor kenny “thinks” he is explaining the Church’s understanding of “substance” by wrongly implying that the Church is defining a mystery here when she never does. I almost want to laugh here, but I sense the sincerety of the misdrawn conclusions.

I confess I am utterly confused. Are you denying that scholasticism was the dominant form of Latin theology during the second millennium? Are you denying that Aquinas, Bonaventure, and others employed the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents to articulate the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ? And what specifically do you object to in Kenny’s interpretation of transubstantiation? Kenny has offered what I deem to be a fair interpretation of the Tridentine dogma, at least when read in light of Aristotle’s notion of first substance, which is probably how St Thomas employed “substance” in his own formulation of Transubstantiation.

Re-read the passage I quoted from Kenny. He seems to be saying what I think, if I read you correctly, you believe Trent is saying: namely, to say that the substance of the bread and wine becomes the substance of the Body and Blood is equivalent to saying that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. How this is possible when the appearances do not change is, of course, the the mystery. You seem to be creating a controversy where there is none.

Your commentators opinion lacks “Substance” and “Reality” when dealing with the Eucharistic change defined by the Catholic Church. The Substance and Reality of the Catholic church’s definition described cannot be measured this is the Reality that the Catholic Church uses to define substance. Your commenatators invention of substance and theories can be measured. Therefore can never measure up to the Catholic Church’s definition of reality and substance.

You have me curious. Where does the Catholic Church DEFINE the meaning of “substance”? The word is, of course, used by the Council of Trent, for example, but the conciliar decree does not provide a definition. In his book Faith and the Future, Cardinal Ratzinger suggests that the dogma of Transubstantiation is difficult for modern men precisely because “the medieval concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us” (p. 24). This at least suggests that matters are not nearly as simple as you assert.

In any case, I personally believe that the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Transubstantiation, properly interpreted, is compatible with the Orthodox Church’s teaching of the eucharistic change.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

My apologies. Did not mean to offend. It’s difficult to know how to speak of Pope Benedict in the days before he became Pope Benedict. In my defense, let me simply note that it is not uncommon for Catholic theologians to use “Ratzinger” to name the author of the pre-papal writings of the Holy Father. No disrespect is intended by this usage, and it has the advantage of acknowledging that Pope Benedict’s pre-papal views represent only the opinions of a Catholic theologian. Similarly, St Thomas Aquinas is often referred to simply as “Aquinas,” without intimating in any way that he is not a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church.

Thank you. I am sure no offence was meant. It is merely that Our Holy Father is much malighned in the secular world. He is deserving of our deepest respect - when I say ‘our’, of course, I mean Roman Catholics. God bless Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FrKimel;9008625]I confess I am utterly confused. Are you denying that scholasticism was the dominant form of Latin theology during the second millennium?

I don’t deny it. I emphatically oppose it, because your expression leaves out St.Bonaventures theology of Love, St.Ignatius of Loyola, St.Francis, especially the Ursulane Mothers of charity and hospitality of caring for the poor and sick all contributed to the theology, gospel teachings of disciplines for the Church to mention a few.

Are you denying that Aquinas, Bonaventure, and others employed the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents to articulate the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

I don’t deny that they used Aristotle terminology but their emphasis of theology in substance, accidents and reality graduates (leaves) Aritstotles philosophy of nature from creation and his definition of transubstantiation… when the St’s are attributing that a change has transpired, by transubstantiation when the accidents “appear” to remain.

Besides St.Thomas Aquinas theology does not adopt “incorporation” he makes note of it without incorporating “incorporation” into his theolgoy.

And what specifically do you object to in Kenny’s interpretation of transubstantiation?

I admit to only drawing my objection to the “Philosophers” commentary you provided, and maybe it is not enough information for me to draw an accurate conclusion.

'To an Aristotelian, the natural meaning of the decree of Trent which states that the substance of bread and wine turns into the substance of Christ’s body and blood,

I disagree with kenny because he states “the **natural meaning of the decree…that ****the substance of bread an wine turns into the substance of Christ’s body and blood”. **

When Trent never discusses the natural meaning of bread and wine “TURNS” into the substance of Christ’s body and blood". The word “Turns into” is not Trent’s terminology in describing the natural “Species”.

is not that some part of the bread and wine turns into some part of the body and blood, but simply that the bread and wine turns into the body and blood.

Kenny uses it again here “turns into” the body and blood, this misinterprets and falsely leads one to understand that the natural bread and wine have turned into something else, by taking on a new natural nature of change.

That is why I stated kenny’s interpretation is trying to define substance which can be measured.

When Trent and the then Cardinal Ratzinger both define that the “Substance” revealed in Transubstantiation can never be measured.

Following Aquinas (in 1 Cor 11:24), the Fathers of Trent used “the substance of Christ’s body” and “Christ’s body” as interchangeable terms.

Following Aquinas here, I can agree because kenny relates the “Substance” to Christ’s body, which Christ’s glorified body cannot be measured by natural or scientific definitions not to mention Kenny’s philosophy in the Eucharist.

According to scholastic theory, substance is not an imperceptible part of a particular individual. It is not a part of an individual; it is that individual.’ (“The Use of Logical Analysis in Theology,” in Theology and the University [1964], p. 232

)

There exists not one theory that suspends the fact that “Substance can be describing an individual”. Scholastic discipline proves the fact that substance can define a person, not a theory.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

Kenny has offered what I deem to be a fair interpretation of the Tridentine dogma, at least when read in light of Aristotle’s notion of first substance, which is probably how St Thomas employed “substance” in his own formulation of Transubstantiation

.

I have no problem here, because neither kenny, Aristotle, St.Thomas Aquinas philosophy or theological opinions do not dictate, exhausts or defines the Church’s definition of Transubstantiation.

Re-read the passage I quoted from Kenny. He seems to be saying what I think, if I read you correctly, you believe Trent is saying: namely, to say that the substance of the bread and wine becomes the substance of the Body and Blood is equivalent to saying that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. How this is possible when the appearances do not change is, of course, the the mystery. You seem to be creating a controversy where there is none.

I read all the commentaries you proposed here including the web sites.

You ask “How this is possible when the appearances do not change”? Answer “Transubstantiation”. All the Church Fathers agree that the bread and wine has taken on a substantial change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. All the Church Fathers agree that the bread and wine “appear” to be bread and wine to our flesh.

Transubstantiation states; The bread and wine have “transubstantiated” into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, this transubstantial change reveals to our senses bread and wine, but in “reality”, all the Church Fathers agree this bread and wine are not common bread and wine but are truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

What I believe is misunderstood here, is that your commentators are forcing Transubstantiation to reveal a flesh body and blood of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine, when transubstantiation only reveals a change has occured.

What is forgotten here from this false view of transubstantation, is what St.Ambrose points to in the Eucharist "Hear his own words; “A spirit has not flesh and bones” (Lk. 24:39) Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements… are TRANSFORMED into the Flesh and the Blood…(To Gratian, on the Christian Faith, bk. 4 Chap. 10).

It appears you are forcing transubstantiation to reveal bones of the flesh, eyes, and arms of Jesus when it never defines such a notion. Only a substantial change has taken place.
While the “accidents of bread and wine” APPEAR to be bread and wine to our senses for these are real to our senses, but it is by divine power that this miracle has taken place not by transubstantiation, are truly as the Fathers teach "the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

In short Transubstantiation states why we see and taste bread and wine, It is God who reveals “this is my body, this is my blood”.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You have me curious. Where does the Catholic Church DEFINE the meaning of “substance”? The word is, of course, used by the Council of Trent, for example, but the conciliar decree does not provide a definition.

The decree of Trent does not specifically state the definition of substance, She only reveals why Trent used Substance and the Catholic faith of substance when applied to the Eucharist (not defined) to be the body of Christ. I will use the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement to support Trent’s application of substance.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger quotes"Reality, is not just what we can measure. It is not only “quantums, qunatifiable entities, that are real; on the contrary, these are always only manifestations of the hidden mystery of true being. BUT HERE WHERE CHRIST MEETS US, WE HAVE TO DO WITH THIS TRUE BEING. THIS IS WHAT WAS BEING EXPRESSED WITH THE WORD SUBSTANCE”.

The Cardinal continues immediately, “This (substance) does not refer to the quantums (which can be measured), but to the profound and fundamental basis of being. Jesus is not there like a piece of meat, not in the realm of what can be measured and quantified.”

The Cardinal concludes here, “ANYONE WHO CONCEIVES OF REALITY AS BEING LIKE THAT IS DECEIVING HIMSELF ABOUT IT AND ABOUT HIMSELF. HE IS LIVING HIS LIFE ALL WRONG.”…The substance is transformed, that is to say, the fundamental basis of its being. That is what is at stake, and NOT THE SUPERFICIAL CATEGORY, TO WHICH EVERYTHING WE CAN MEASURE OR TOUCH BELONGS". pg. 85 “God is Near Us”, paranthesis mine.

In his book Faith and the Future, Cardinal Ratzinger suggests that the dogma of Transubstantiation is difficult for modern men precisely because “the medieval concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us” (p. 24). This at least suggests that matters are not nearly as simple as you assert.

Matters are never simple when man tries to define God who is mystery. “Transubstantiation is difficult for modern men”, because from your two modern definitions are trying desperately “not define transubstantiation” but to define after transubstantiation what exists in the confected bread and wine by modern science which falls to the wayside when compared to the medieval concept of substance, "which is inaccessible to us because “Substance” according the Catholic Faith cannot be measured.

One other thing that your modern commentaries falsely imply of transubstantiation. When they leave the “change”, to redefine transubstantiation into a community affair. I believe your philosophers are looking for the word “Holy Communion”, not transubstantiation.

In any case, I personally believe that the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Transubstantiation, properly interpreted, is compatible with the Orthodox Church’s teaching of the eucharistic change.

I totally agree with you, after true exegesis, both Catholic and Orthodox Church’s define a change, revealing the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist. Each one’s theological terms differ, but both arrive to celebrate the “Wedding Feast of the Lamb” Rev. 19:9

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;9008294]At the risk of proselytizing, I am of the opinion the Orthodox are reaching out to Lutheran doctrine to find commonality which is a positive venture. This ecumenical effort should continue.

Agreed. Just like our mutual ecumenical efforts.

But Lutherans; according to the Orthodox opinion, “come from Catholicism and are a Catholics problem, not an Orthodox problem”.

lol, probably so.

That said; Lutherans are very close to Catholics as our faith’s mirror one another in practice and Tradition. Yet by validity of sacraments both Catholics and Orthodox share these in common.

At least validity via apostolic succession, in the eyes of your communion and theirs, yes.

The true presence in terminology and understanding between Catholics and Lutherans reveal common ground set in stone to begin a path of communion which we have not arrived yet officially. I have witnessed in my lifetime that Lutherans partaking of holy communion during a Catholic wedding Mass. The priest informed those in attendance "if you are Catholic and you believe this Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Jesus Christ then you are welcome to partake of communion. ALL the Lutherans partook of Holy Communion.
I don’t know if any one has witnessed Catholics partaking of communion in a Lutheran service? But these are side bar issues dealing with disciplines.

Whie I would not partake, it would be out of sincere respect for Catholic teaching. I suspect the Lutherans did this out of acknowledgement of the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, which I share. It is, in fact an asymetical relationship; we recognize yours, you don’t recognize ours. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Although we both believe that the bread and wine “have changed” and are truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ we share a spiritual communion in the body of Christ, because Lutherans hold to a True presence as we Catholics do, this binds us in faith in the body of Christ. You know as well as I do, there are more obstacles to overcome to the Lutheran interpretations from the objections of the Apostolic Catholic faith.

Agreed.

As far as validity is concerned, becomes a subject of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture which the Catholic Church cannot change, she is bound to this Apostolic deposit of faith.

Yes, we recognize that this is the teaching of the CC.

The terminology described by Lutherans today in the true presence,** reveals a faith and not an objection to the true presence.** The objection arises to Transubstantiation by Lutherans, but when exegisis is applied today of true transubstantiation to Lutherans we find common ground expressing faith in the change in the bread and wine substance.

I tend to agree. On the bolded, I appreciate that you recognize our stance

It remains to be seen whether or not Lutherans as a whole community, will come back into full communion with the Catholic Church, or become like the Orthodox and maintain their status as an independent “autocephalous” Church. This subject is too huge to discusss here but with God it is not impossible.

Yes.

Personally I don’t see much difference from our communions, just the validity keeps our communions apart. There is much more to add to this discussion Jon, and I hope we will as time goes on… and look foward to the day when we can share communions together. Sometimes efforts like this need to begin at the grass roots like here.

Amen.

Jon

 

[FrKimel]

Gabriel, I think there are two issues here that may be profitably discussed:

(1) What did the Council of Trent mean when it declared that “by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood.”

Kenny exegetes this text to mean that the bread and wine offered on the altar truly and really become, in their entirety, the Body and Blood of Christ. You, on the other hand, exegete this text to mean that only the substance, i.e., the inner reality, of the bread and wine is converted into the Body and Blood, or more accurately, into the substance of the Body and Blood, the externals of the bread and wine being untouched by the consecration, as it were. Am I interpreting you correctly so far?

I do not wish to argue who is interpreting Trent correctly. I, for one, lack the competence to do so. But let me suggest that there is a discussion and debate to be had here. I know this because I have read more than my fair share of Catholic discussions of Tansubstantiation, including St Thomas Aquinas’s presentation in his Summa Theologica (though I will not pretend to have understood it well). Hence I do not accept your interpretation (and it is an interpretation) of Trent as being the only one possible or even the most likely, though I do acknowledge that your interpretation is popular, especially at the catechetical and homiletical levels.

But for purpose of this discussion, I am happy to stipulate that you have interpreted Trent correctly, which brings us to the second issue.

(2) Many Orthodox have problems with Transubstantiation, precisely as you have interpreted it. Their concern might be summed up as follows: “Christ did not say, 'This is the substance of my Body.” He said, “This is my Body.’” At the turn of the 20th century, the two foremost Greek theologians debated precisely this point. Androutsos argued that in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ are present “under” the forms of bread and wine. Dyobouniotes dissented:

This expression … is based on the Roman doctrine … of transubstantiation, and cannot be accepted in the Eastern Church, whose Fathers teach that the bread and wine are changed (converted), into the Body and Blood of Christ … (Our Lord) said: “Take eat, this is my body,” not “under this is my body”…. The Eastern Church does not recognize that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ while the accidents remain, under which the Body and Blood of Christ exist, but simply says that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the descent of the Holy Spirit, through whom these things surpassing reason and understanding are achieved…. All of the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and not only a part of them.

Eastern Orthodoxy is implacably realistic in its interpretation of the dominical Words. The eucharistic transformation does not touch just a part of the bread and wine; it embraces the bread and wine in their entirety. They truly become and are the Body and Blood of the risen Lord. Hence we do not dismiss the words of St John Chrysostom as mere metaphor:

Wherefore this also Christ hath done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and toshow his love for us; he hath given to those who desire him not only to see him, but even to touch, and eat him, and fix their teeth in his flesh, and to embrace him,and satisfy all their love.

Now I know that this mystical realism raises all sorts of questions, but the space restrictions of this forum do not permit me to elaborate–perhaps in another post, if anyone expresses interest in hearing more. But let me just close with these words from Paul Evdokimov: “In summarizing the teaching of the Fathers, beyond any physical conversion, for the eyes of faith after the epiclesis, quite simply there is nothing else on the diskos and in the chalice except the body and blood of Christ.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FrKimel;9012045]Gabriel, I think there are two issues here that may be profitably discussed:

(1) What did the Council of Trent mean when it declared that “by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood.”

Very simply in Trent’s definition of transubstantiation; I will highlight the one word that is missing from your analogy of Trent that will help solidify your Orthodox view and Catholic view;

“APPEARANCE”. CCC 1376…there takes place a change of the Whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of His blood.

(This change the Church calls Transubstantiation = by the Concecration of the bread and wine, the “whole” substance of bread and wine change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, while the “APPEARANCE” of bread and wine remain these to our “flesh” senses the whole bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.)

“After Transubstantiation the definition includes the “accidents” of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever”, the Church defines these accidents are “real” to our senses “not make believe”; They are sustained in existence by divine power." John A. Hardon, S.J.

CCC 1377 …Christ is present Whole and Entire in** EACH **of the Species and Whole and Entire in Each of Their Parts, in such a way that the breaking of bread does not divide Christ.

Let me give a layperson’s understanding of Transubstantiation. We reverence every visible piece, crumb, drop or stain inside the side of the chalice to be the whole entire body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This Catholic faith removes all doubt of what is remaining visible to our senses, but to our souls the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

After the confected species, the bread and wine only appear to be those bread and wine to our senses, but they are whole and entire the true and real presence of our dear Lord Jesus Christ.

Kenny exegetes this text to mean that the bread and wine offered on the altar truly and really become, in their entirety, the Body and Blood of Christ. You, on the other hand, exegete this text to mean that only the substance, i.e., the inner reality, of the bread and wine is converted into the Body and Blood, or more accurately, into the substance of the Body and Blood, the externals of the bread and wine being untouched by the consecration, as it were. Am I interpreting you correctly so far?

No, my previous posts reveal that the confected bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ, by transubstantiation only the accidents of bread and wine “appear” to be these to our senses, when they are whole and entirely the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I debated this issue further back, when an Orthodox was revealing that the accidents of bread and wine maintain their substance as bread and wine from the accidents. I emphatically disagreed with him and proved that is not the Catholic position nor the definition of Transubstantiation defined by the Catholic Church.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do not wish to argue who is interpreting Trent correctly. I, for one, lack the competence to do so. But let me suggest that there is a discussion and debate to be had here. I know this because I have read more than my fair share of Catholic discussions of Tansubstantiation, including St Thomas Aquinas’s presentation in his Summa Theologica (though I will not pretend to have understood it well). Hence I do not accept your interpretation (and it is an interpretation) of Trent as being the only one possible or even the most likely, though I do acknowledge that your interpretation is popular, especially at the catechetical and homiletical levels.

I hope that I have clarified my interpretation as being in total agreement with Pope Benedict XVI, Trent, and can prove my case through the Early Church Fathers with Trent’s definition of transubstantiation. When I don’t have any substance of bread remaining in my Eucharist interpretation. I have the bread and wine appearing to be those of bread and wine from the accidents described from transubstantiation to my flesh (senses) but are truly and whole the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

For clarification I do not have any bread and wine remaining in the Eucharist, only those accidents which “appear” to be bread and wine to my senses.

But for purpose of this discussion, I am happy to stipulate that you have interpreted Trent correctly, which brings us to the second issue.

Only in substance have I addressed Trent through then Cardinal Ratzingers interpretation of the Church’s definition of “substance”.

(2) Many Orthodox have problems with Transubstantiation, precisely as you have interpreted it. Their concern might be summed up as follows: “Christ did not say, 'This is the substance of my Body.” He said, “This is my Body.’” At the turn of the 20th century, the two foremost Greek theologians debated precisely this point. Androutsos argued that in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ are present “under” the forms of bread and wine. Dyobouniotes dissented:

I agree with Androutsos. Because when the Fathers describe “forms” of bread and wine, they intend to speak of the sacrament being applied here. Although one Father objects to the term “under”, but I beleive he is contesting a symbolic view, when “under” was being applied.

Here in this forum I find two oppossing Orthodox view of the “accidents” of bread and wine. Carvodossi has the bread and wine existing as bread and wine by accidents after the change, while you appear to not have bread and wine existing after the change? How do you explain this?

Eastern Orthodoxy is implacably realistic in its interpretation of the dominical Words. The eucharistic transformation does not touch just a part of the bread and wine; it embraces the bread and wine in their entirety. They truly become and are the Body and Blood of the risen Lord. Hence we do not dismiss the words of St John Chrysostom as mere metaphor:

Neither do I, nor does Trent. In fact The CCC uses St.John Chrysostom’s and many ECF’s commentary to support the CCC teachings on the real presence see CCC1369-1377

Now I know that this mystical realism raises all sorts of questions, but the space restrictions of this forum do not permit me to elaborate–perhaps in another post, if anyone expresses interest in hearing more. But let me just close with these words from Paul Evdokimov: “In summarizing the teaching of the Fathers, beyond any physical conversion, for the eyes of faith after the epiclesis, quite simply there is nothing else on the diskos and in the chalice except the body and blood of Christ.”

And the Catholic Church defends this teaching to those carnal minds who object to seeing only bread and wine with Transubstantiation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I wish to add my own comments here to you FrKimel if you please? In addressing the Orthodox/Lutheran position.

Although you stated this view may not be shared by all Orthodox supporting the Lutheran position of the real presence. Although these Orthodox/Lutheran views appear to have bread and wine existing alongside with the body and blood of Jesus Christ by their terminology which I would object too.

I wish to mention although an Orthodox may express this view of bread and wine existing somehow suspended in faith along with the body and blood of Jesus. I would state this opininion does not invalidate the Orthodox’s Eucharist.

When a Lutheran is holding to such a position agreeing with the Orthodox holding to a bread and wine existing with the body and blood in the Eucharist, it still does not validate the Lutheran’s Eucharist.

This is never do discount the faith of the Lutherans in any capacity of the real presence. But I wanted to express a Catholic perspective to your Orthodox/Lutheran position.

Peace be with you

 

[FrKimel]

Gabriel, I composed my comment #213 in response to your comment #210 and did not see your comment #211 until after I posted my #213, so I’m a little behind here.

Thank you for posting the quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger’s article “The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament” (originally written in 1978). It’s been a few years since I last read this thoughtful article, and I am happy to be re-directed back to it. In this article Pope Benedict offers an interpretation of the eucharistic transformation that I find quite congenial; indeed, his presentation congeals very nicely with the previously cited articles by McCabe and Nichols. I do not think you quite appreciate the creativity and freshness of his approach when compared to the scholastic interpretations of Transubstantiation that dominated Catholic theology for centuries. But that is by the by.

You write:

Here in this forum I find two oppossing Orthodox view of the “accidents” of bread and wine. Carvodossi has the bread and wine existing as bread and wine by accidents after the change, while you appear to not have bread and wine existing after the change? How do you explain this?

Orthodoxy has never been seriously divided by eucharistic heresies and so has never found it necessary to dogmatically define the nature of the eucharistic change. Hence a wider diversity of interpretations are permitted, within the confession that the bread and wine truly become and are the Body and Blood of Christ. What this precisely means for Orthodox Christians is most powerfully expressed in our eucharistic worship and liturgical praxis.

Many contemporary Orthodox theologians find the scholastic distinction between substance and accident inadequate and unhelpful as a way to state the mystery of the eucharistic change. In their mind this distinction actually undermines a full confession of the eucharistic change, as if only the “inner reality” of the bread and wine are changed, leaving behind empty husks that now house the Body and Blood. While such a an explanation provides an easy answer to the charge of cannibalism and explains why it is that we perceive the consecrated elements to still be bread and wine, it does not properly appreciate the eschatological nature of the Divine Liturgy as a whole. In the Eucharist the Church ascends into Heaven. The Divine Liturgy is the Liturgy of the Kingdom. It is only within that context does it make sense to confess that the Holy Gifts are the glorified humanity of the risen Christ. The notion of substantial change simply does not adequately express what happens in the eucharistic event.

In my previous comment I quoted St John Chrysostom and stated that we do not dismiss his realistic language as purely metaphorical. You responded, “Neither do I.” Well and good … but the classic doctrine of transubstantiation does not allow us to say that we touch Christ, see him, and crush him with our teeth. According to transubstantiation Christ is not locally present in the Sacrament. When you touch the Host, you touch the sacramental sign, not Christ; when you chew the Host, you chew the sacramental sign, not Christ. When the Host is moved in procession, is is the sacramental sign that is moved, not Christ. Transubstantiation offers very clear answers to these questions. Orthodox prefer to remain at the level of paradox, antinomy, and mystery.

Whereas Orthodox presentations of the eucharistic change can sound, to Western ears, like consubstantiation, I don’t think the Orthodox view is accurately described as consubstantiation, just as it is not accurately understood as transubstantiation. Orthodoxy can affirm both that the Holy Gifts are the Body and Blood and only the Body and Blood, and yet also acknowledge that, in some sense, they must remain bread and wine precisely so they may be the food and drink of the Kingdom. We are not comfortable with saying that the only the accidents remain after the consecration, because that language suggests, at least in popular imagination, that the appearances now function as a disguise for the Body and Blood. Something more radical and mysterious than transubstantiation happens in the eucharistic change. By Orthodox apprehension, the bread and wine in their total existence have become the Body and Blood. The transelemented bread and wine now enjoy a new mode of being as the food and drink of the Kingdom.