Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you FrKimel for your wonderful commentary in relating your Orthodox position.

Please allow me to rebutt a few misunderstandings you have of the Catholic position in relation to “sign”, “accidents” and “substance”. I assure you and can prove to you that these are truly biblical and supported by our Early Church Fathers.

I call your attention to the prophet “Simeon” (Lk.2:34b) who relates the divine child who will be “A SIGN OF CONTRADICTION”. This FrKimel is directly related to the “reality” of the sacramental sign “sacrifice” of which you misinterpret Catholic theology to be a sign to the senses as some type of billboard, which is an incorrect implication of the biblical “Sign of Contradiction”.

The sacramental “sign” revealed in the Eucharist is all mystery encompassing the revelations of Incarnation, crucifixion, sacrifice, body, blood, resurrection, glorification of Jesus Christ.

Both or our liturgies enter into these mysteries, but when Catholics speak in this terminology she is referencing these mysteries all at once with the visible “sign of contradiction” in the sacramental sign of the Eucharist.

Iam finding your definitions of the terminology which the Church uses to be in direct contradiction to the Church’s meanings and understandings.

For example; “Accidents”. The term “Accidents” does not imply that a “husk” exists in the Eucharist this is heresy according to Catholic Theology. If Orthodoxy is viewing the Eucharist in this way from “Accidents” then Orthodoxy stands alone in this heretical form of theology, because it is never Catholic teaching.

Accidents when applied from Transubstantiation reveals that a change has taken place in the whole substance of the accidents of bread and wine into the whole body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Frkimel or I or anyone else for that matter; cannot deny that which we see and taste in the Eucharist “according to the ECF’s” is bread and wine. Transubstantiation reveals this reality that see’s and taste’s bread and wine, but according to the ECF’s and Transubstantiation these are not common bread and wine, because they are truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

What I object to Orthodox’s view of the Eucharist is; as you say a distorted view of “consubstantiation”. I find it troubling when the Orthodox objects to the Catholic view of the Eucharist, comes with false interpretations and misunderstandings, when Orthodoxy takes words such as “sign, sacrament, accidents, substance” and take a carnal mentality and relates these Catholic terms and redefine them contrary to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as if to discount them and redefine these by insults and heretical implications from Orthodoxy’s opinions.

When the Church has always used these terms and the Catholic Church has not redefined them, as do the Orthodox who redefine them to mean something other than what the Church has always defined them.

We do well here, to address these misrepresentations here.

It should be noted again here, that Transubstantiation never attempts nor reveals the mystery of the Eucharist only a change. Why Orthodoxy looks to transubstantiation to describe or define the mystery of the Eucharist, is a venture Orthodoxy does on her own.

According to Catholicism the mystery is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ revealed in His Eucharist, not transubstantiation.

I understand how Orthodoxy uses a variety of terms to relate to the Eucharist. As does Catholicism. But I assure you Catholicism never has any “bread or wine” co-existing with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in her Eucharist; as you have misrepresented the terminology used by the Catholic Church in her understanding in the mind of Christ.

I assure you Frkimel, that my interpretation and Trent’s interpretation of the Eucharist does not conflict with any ECF’s or Pope Benedicts commentaries of the real presence. Pope Bendedict only reveals the language of the Catholic Church when applied to the Eucharist never conflicts nor contradicts with SacredScripture and Sacred Tradition. That is probably why you find the Popes interpretations of Catholic language agreeable. But in essence the Pope never leaves the mind and faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[FrKimel]

Gabriel, when I used the term “sacramental sign” I was referring specifically to the species. As I understand transubstantiation, classically formulated, Latin Christians do not believe that when the communicant touches or chews the Host he touches or chews the risen Christ. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, prefers to remain with the paradoxical language of the Divine Liturgy: “Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God; broken but never divided; ever eaten, yet never consumed, but hallowing those who partake.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FrKimel;9015248]Gabriel, when I used the term “sacramental sign” I was referring specifically to the species

.

I understand; But according to Catholic definition of species identifies the visible attributes of bread and wine, “Species” does not identify the specific Sacramental Sign.

As I understand transubstantiation, classically formulated,

Classic format of transubstantiation is “the accidents or species” of bread and wine “appear” to be bread and wine to our senses, but have transubstantiatied into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Latin Christians do not believe that when the communicant touches or chews the Host he touches or chews the risen Christ

.

Transubstantiation never reaches this level of revelation in the communion of consuming the Host, because Transubstantiation does not attempt to reveal this mystery in the Eucharist. Yet Orthodox pretend to reveal such a mystery? When St.Lukes records Jesus Teaching “a Spirit does not have flesh and bone”.

Catholics believe that by our act of eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus Christ, in “eternal reality” it is Jesus himself who is consuming us into his body and blood as One. When the two are made one from the consumation of the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Suffice it to mention this is only the beginning of entering into the mysteries of the Eucharist, there is much much more to elaborate in the mysteries of consuming the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Thefore the Catholic Church is not bound by only one Saints teaching or example in the consuming of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church encompasses and embraces all of them.

The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, prefers to remain with the paradoxical language of the Divine Liturgy: “Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God; broken but never divided; ever eaten, yet never consumed, but hallowing those who partake.”

And what a beautiful liturgy Orthodox has including those Orthodox Eastern Catholic in full communion with the Popes.

The “Broken…but never divided” language is used in Trent’s definition of Transubstantiation.

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 the bread does not divide Christ."

If Orthodox can keep to Transubstantiation as relating to the “change” and not take Transubstantiation into philosophical heights trying to reveal the mystical presence of Jesus body and blood such as gnawing and chewing which transubstantiation never attempts to enter into these mysteries.

This is not to say that I disagree with Orthodoxy’s faith making attempts as to describe the mysteries of the Eucharist. Iam just saying Transubstantiation does not attempt to reveal the mysteries of the Eucharist, this is application deals with “Faith” which words can never reach.

Peace be with you

 

[FrKimel]

.I understand; But according to Catholic definition of species identifies the visible attributes of bread and wine, “Species” does not identify the specific Sacramental Sign.

Gabriel, I respectfully suggest that your account of transubstantiation has omitted the crucial role of sacramental signs. The species are sacramental signs. Christ is contained “within” the species because by the consecration the species now function as efficacious signs that produce what they signify. This is why, when the species disappear, Christ ceases to be sacramentally present. As Timothy McDermott, translator of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation, writes:

The sacraments not only signify, they cause, and it is by signifying that they cause. The eucharist not only signifies Christ’s body and blood to be present, it really makes them present; but it is precisely by signifying their presence that the eucharist makes them present. … Christ’s substance is really present under the outward appearances of bread and wine only because those appearances are signifying its presence by God’s creative command (and indeed will depart when those appearances depart).

I commend to you Abott Vonier’s classic work A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist.

In any case, though the Orthodox Church has in the past employed the notion of substance to speak of the eucharistic presence (I’m thinking here specifically of the Confession of Dositheus), she is not dogmatically constrained by it. When I am talking to my fellow Orthodox believers, I bend over backwards to help them to understand that, properly understood, transubstantiation does not represent an un-Orthodox way of construing the eucharistic change, though I recognize that it has its limitations and is probably not the best way to speak of the eucharistic change, especially within an Eastern context. The Orthodox Church simply does not need a theory of transubstantiation in order to proclaim the transformation of the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of the risen Christ.

For those interested in understanding better the Orthodox view of these matters, I recommend Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharistic Dogma,” in The Holy Grail & The Eucharist and Alexander Schmemann, Holly Eucharist. Better yet, attend the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FrKimel;9015690]Gabriel, I respectfully suggest that your account of transubstantiation has omitted the crucial role of sacramental signs. The species are sacramental signs. Christ is contained “within” the species because by the consecration the species now function as efficacious signs that produce what they signify. This is why, when the species disappear, Christ ceases to be sacramentally present. As Timothy McDermott, translator of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation, writes

:

How did you get transubstantiation omitting the crucial role of sacramental signs? When Transubstantiation never reveals a sacrament in any way only a change has occured.

What makes the confected bread and wine a sacrament is by divine power spoken by the Words of God in Liturgy, not transubstantiation. The visible species “endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” while Christ body and blood are whole and entirely present. Eucharist is the sacrament while species relates to what is visible to our senses, in other words the species revealed as bread and wine when consumed into our bodies. But the sacrament does not cease to exist, only the species that appear as bread and wine to our senses, species is not a sacrament it is the Eucharist which the Church calls blessed Sacrament.

Again you have the substance of the Eucharist being measured which is a misrepresentation of Transubstantiation of the change which cannot be measured. When you got the sacramental sign becoming the species of bread and wine, which is never Catholic teaching. Eucharist and species are mentioned separately to reveal what we see and taste are truly the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, what God has created in His Eucharist to be consumed in what appears to be in the species of bread and wine, but are not, they are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Yet if one follows your analogy, you got sacramental signs (which cannot be measured) being species of bread and wine existing revealing the divinity of Christ. Which makes no sense at all.

How you got “Christ is contained” in the species of bread and wine is not a sacrament, the sacramental signs revealed in the species of bread and wine appearing to our senses only are truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

CCC 1116 “Sacraments are powers that comes forth from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are ACTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT at work in his Body, the Church. They are the master works of God”.

You got this backwards when you have the species of bread and wine possessing the power to make the Eucharist a sacrament., when you quote “Christ is contained “within” the species”. The species has no sacramental powers, the species appearing as bread and wine in the Eucharist is the body, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Orthodox Church simply does not need a theory of transubstantiation in order to proclaim the transformation of the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of the risen Christ

.

The way the Orthodox Church redefines and misrepresents Transubstantiation; the Catholic Church doesnt’ want or need your redefined theory of transubstantiation that does not exist in the Catholic Church in any capacity as you redefined here, and point others to agree with your redefinition of transubstantiation from excerpts excluding the mind of Christ in the Faith of the real presence in the Eucharist after True transubstantiation has occurred.

We can find agreement here, if you don’t take transubstantiation out of its Catholic defined context and make it something other. Relating transubstantiation only to a substantial change to the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. After transubstantiation what is existing in the Eucharist cannot be measured, only what appears to our senses by divine power as species of bread and wine.

For those interested in understanding better the Orthodox view of these matters, I recommend Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharistic Dogma,” in The Holy Grail & The Eucharist and Alexander Schmemann, Holly Eucharist. Better yet, attend the Divine Liturgy.

Thanks for the recommended readings. I am always looking for Orthodox authors who get to the nitty gritty of Orthodoxy without having to prove its theology by trying to disprove Others.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Frkimel;
How did you get transubstantiation omitting the crucial role of sacramental signs? When Transubstantiation never reveals a sacrament in any way only a change has occured.

What makes the confected bread and wine a sacrament is by divine power spoken by the Words of God in Liturgy, not transubstantiation. The visible species “endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” while Christ body and blood are whole and entirely present. Eucharist is the sacrament while species relates to what is visible to our senses, in other words the species revealed as bread and wine when consumed into our bodies. But the sacrament does not cease to exist, only the species that appear as bread and wine to our senses, species is not a sacrament it is the Eucharist which the Church calls blessed Sacrament.

Again you have the substance of the Eucharist being measured which is a misrepresentation of Transubstantiation of the change which cannot be measured. When you got the sacramental sign becoming the species of bread and wine, which is never Catholic teaching. Eucharist and species are mentioned separately to reveal what we see and taste are truly the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, what God has created in His Eucharist to be consumed in what appears to be in the species of bread and wine, but are not, they are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Yet if one follows your analogy, you got sacramental signs (which cannot be measured) being species of bread and wine existing revealing the divinity of Christ. Which makes no sense at all.

How you got

“Christ is contained” in the species of bread and wine"

is not a sacrament, the sacramental signs revealed in the species of bread and wine appearing to our senses only are truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

CCC 1116 “Sacraments are powers that comes forth from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are ACTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT at work in his Body, the Church. They are the master works of God”.

You got this backwards when you have the species of bread and wine possessing the power to make the Eucharist a sacrament., when you quote “Christ is contained “within” the species”. The species has no sacramental powers, the species appearing as bread and wine in the Eucharist is the body, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

The way the Orthodox Church redefines and misrepresents Transubstantiation; the Catholic Church doesnt’ want or need your redefined theory of transubstantiation that does not exist in the Catholic Church in any capacity as you redefined here, and point others to agree with your redefinition of transubstantiation from excerpts excluding the mind of Christ in the Faith of the real presence in the Eucharist after True transubstantiation has occurred.

We can find agreement here, if you don’t take transubstantiation out of its Catholic defined context and make it something other. Relating transubstantiation only to a substantial change to the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. After transubstantiation what is existing in the Eucharist cannot be measured, only what appears to our senses by divine power as species of bread and wine.

Thanks for the recommended readings. I am always looking for Orthodox authors who get to the nitty gritty of Orthodoxy without having to prove its theology by trying to disprove Others.

Peace be with you

 

[FrKimel]

Gabriel, perhaps we are misunderstanding each other, which is easy to do in this medium. I’m afraid I do not understand most of your last comment.

You seem to be suggesting that I have misunderstood or misconstrued the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This, of course, is always a possibility; but I am relying on Catholic theologians–and over the past 35 years I have read a lot of Catholic theologians–to inform my understanding of Catholic doctrine, so if I am wrong, then they are wrong, too. In other words, what we have here really is an intra-Catholic debate. This is why I have cited so many Catholic theologians: Vonier, McCabe, McDermott, Nichols, Ratzinger, Aquinas. I am not relying on my private reading of Trent. I am relying on Catholic theologians who are seeking to articulate the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. It is impossible, for example, to rightly understand the Tridentine decree on the Eucharist without having read some of the scholastic theologians, especially Aquinas, who informed and shaped the Tridentine Fathers. But Catholic theological reflection didn’t stop in the 16th century. Catholic theologians have struggled mightily over the past century to articulate the transubstantiation dogma in modern categories. What this means is that it is insufficient to simply quote the Tridentine definition. This definition needs to be read within the context of Catholic theology as a whole.

Please do not think that I am misrepresenting the Catholic position for polemical purposes. I have been Orthodox only a very short time. It is fair to say that I have a much better grasp of Catholic eucharistic theology than I do of Orthodox eucharistic theology.

I am unclear what theologians you have read and how you come to your interpretation of the Catholic understanding of the eucharistic real presence and transubstantiation. Clearly you have read the Tridentine decree and the Catechism, as well as that one article by Cardinal Ratzinger. But what else have you read? Who are you relying on? This might help me to better understand how you are interpreting transubstantiation.

But perhaps it would be best to bring our conversation to a close. What we really have going on here is an intra-Catholic debate on what transubstantiation means, and that debate is best left to Catholics.

Blessings.

 

[Elijahmaria]

The Orthodox Church simply does not need a theory of transubstantiation in order to proclaim the transformation of the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of the risen Christ.

Dear Father Kimel,

Expressed in that way, neither does the other Catholic Church…

Transubstantiation merely expresses the fact that Eucharist is NOT two different and distinct natures inhabiting the same space at the same time.

Even God needs to obey His own physical laws, IF you believe and teach that there can be no contradiction in God.

Does Orthodoxy believe and teach that God can contradict Himself?

Mary

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In my conclusion from this discussion thus far Frkimel, is that when a Catholic speaks of Sacramental signs, substance, species, Eucharist after transubstantiation (“change” has occured by divine power), Catholics are describing Spiritual realities in spiritual terms when they cannot be measured.

What I have assessed by your interpretations from these Catholic terms after transubstantiation is that you relate them to carnal understandings which can be measured.

What you imply to Catholic theology is that the Change never occured after transubstantiation. Because you have a “HUSK” existing in the Eucharist in form of bread and wine “containing” the body, blood of Jesus Christ, which is never a Catholic understanding. A “Husk” does not exist in the Eucharist as you wrongly implied from an Orthodox opinion.

There exist no Catholic scholar or theologian in good standing with the Catholic Church who could contradict or conflict with the CCC, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition.

Thus I hold to the above as my authoritative source to be measure all others.

In support to this particular discussion of terminology, I have produced the then Cardinal Ratzinger "First the Word **“Substance” was used by the Church precisely to avoid **]the naivete associated with what we can touch or measure"Pg. 84 God is Near Us.

Also Fr. John A.Hardon S.J. who elequently addresses and refutes this issue in regards to your false Orthodox “Husk” theory. “After Transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine “DO NOT” inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe, they are sustained in existence by divine power”. Pg 419 Catholic Abridged Dictionary.

These Catholics support the language of the CCC, because the then Cardinal Ratzinger reveals the Church definition of “Substance” when applied after transubstantiation cannot be measured.

While Fr. John explains after transubstantiation reveals, “although the accidents of bread and wine “DO NOT” inhere in any subject or substance whatever”!. Fr. John continues by revealing our natural reality to this eternal reality by stating that “they are not make-believe” because “they are sustained in existence by divine power”.

What Fr.John and the Cardinal Ratzinger both reveal is the mystical relationship of the Incarnation presiding in the Eucharist from a “Reality” that cannot be measured because these are done by divine power.

My sources are many to offer here, but suffice to say none of them contradict or conflict with the canon of CCC, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition. Yet each one does not fully definitively define the Eucharist real presence, because it cannot be exhausted by definitions nor can the Eucharist be measured.

CCC 1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharist species is “UNIQUE”…In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood”, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and , therefore the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained. The presence is called “REAL”.

The CCC reveals that the Whole body, blood, soul and divinity is “substantially” contained in the Eucharist. In other words there is nothing missing in any part, particle, drop of the Eucharist that does not contain the “REAL” presence of Jesus Christ. This never implies that from the Husk of bread and wine “contain” Jesus body and blood.

The “substantial” presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity cannot be measured in the Eucharist, not even in the species of bread and wine visible to our senses by divine power can man measure Christ’s divinity.

We are not discussing “intra-Catholic debate” here, we are discussing Orthodoxy’s misrepresentation of Catholic unchanged 2000 year faith in the Eucharist.

In conclusion it would do the Holy Blessed Sacrament justice when Orthodoxy and Catholic theologian stop attempting to measure the real presence and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, when Faith is called for here sustained in the mind of Christ not carnal understandings from the flesh of men. I pray that terminology can begin a path of faith such as Trasubstantiation, but not terminology that attempts to define God, which can only be revealed by God himself, which He loving does in His Eucharist.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In my conclusion from this discussion thus far Frkimel, is that when a Catholic speaks of Sacramental signs, substance, species, Eucharist after transubstantiation (“change” has occured by divine power), Catholics are describing Spiritual realities in spiritual terms when they cannot be measured.

What I have assessed by your interpretations from these Catholic terms after transubstantiation is that you relate them to carnal understandings which can be measured.

What you imply to Catholic theology is that the Change never occured after transubstantiation. Because you have a “HUSK” existing in the Eucharist in form of bread and wine “containing” the body, blood of Jesus Christ, which is never a Catholic understanding. A “Husk” does not exist in the Eucharist as you wrongly implied from an Orthodox opinion.

There exist no Catholic scholar or theologian in good standing with the Catholic Church who could contradict or conflict with the CCC, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition.

Thus I hold to the above as my authoritative source to be measure all others.

In support to this particular discussion of terminology, I have produced the then Cardinal Ratzinger “First the Word **“Substance” was used by the Church precisely to avoid **]the naivete associated with what we can touch or measure”

Pg. 84 God is Near Us.

Also Fr. John A.Hardon S.J. who elequently addresses and refutes this issue in regards to your false Orthodox “Husk” theory. “After Transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine “DO NOT” inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe, they are sustained in existence by divine power”. Pg 419 Catholic Abridged Dictionary.

These Catholics support the language of the CCC, because the then Cardinal Ratzinger reveals the Church definition of “Substance” when applied after transubstantiation cannot be measured.

While Fr. John explains after transubstantiation reveals, “although the accidents of bread and wine “DO NOT” inhere in any subject or substance whatever”!. Fr. John continues by revealing our natural reality to this eternal reality by stating that “they are not make-believe” because “they are sustained in existence by divine power”.

What Fr.John and the Cardinal Ratzinger both reveal is the mystical relationship of the Incarnation presiding in the Eucharist from a “Reality” that cannot be measured because these are done by divine power.

My sources are many to offer here, but suffice to say none of them contradict or conflict with the canon of CCC, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition. Yet each one does not fully definitively define the Eucharist real presence, because it cannot be exhausted by definitions nor can the Eucharist be measured.

CCC 1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharist species is “UNIQUE”…In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood”, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and , therefore the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained. The presence is called “REAL”.

The CCC reveals that the Whole body, blood, soul and divinity is “substantially” contained in the Eucharist. In other words there is nothing missing in any part, particle, drop of the Eucharist that does not contain the “REAL” presence of Jesus Christ. This never implies that from the Husk of bread and wine “contain” Jesus body and blood.

The “substantial” presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity cannot be measured in the Eucharist, not even in the species of bread and wine visible to our senses by divine power can man measure Christ’s divinity.

We are not discussing “intra-Catholic debate” here, we are discussing Orthodoxy’s misrepresentation of Catholic unchanged 2000 year faith in the Eucharist.

In conclusion it would do the Holy Blessed Sacrament justice when Orthodoxy and Catholic theologian stop attempting to measure the real presence and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, when Faith is called for here sustained in the mind of Christ not carnal understandings from the flesh of men. I pray that terminology can begin a path of faith such as Trasubstantiation, but not terminology that attempts to define God, which can only be revealed by God himself, which He loving does in His Eucharist.

Peace be with you

 

[FrKimel]

Transubstantiation merely expresses the fact that Eucharist is NOT two different and distinct natures inhabiting the same space at the same time. Even God needs to obey His own physical laws, IF you believe and teach that there can be no contradiction in God.

Mary, I think you have touched on a point about which many people, including Catholics like Herbert McCabe, question about transubstantiation, at least as popularly presented: the teaching seems to treat the glorified, risen body of Jesus Christ as if it still belonged to this world, as if the bread and wine and the body of Christ belong to the same ontological plane–hence the alleged contradiction. But does it make sense to speak of the substance and accidents of the glorified body of the Lord? Do we even know what we are talking about when we talk this way?

The strength of Herbert McCabe’s discussion of the “Eucharistic Change” is that it recognizes that our language breaks down precisely at this point. He recognizes that it is a precarious thing to employ the notion of substantial change to speak of the eucharistic change, as it is so easily misunderstood. I’m tempted to quote McCabe at length, but instead I’ll simply trust you to read his piece. McCabe offers more extensive discussion on transubstantiation in his book God Matters. Here are two quotes from the book that I find very helpful:

The Eucharist is not a question of the substance of bread becoming the substance of a human body (this kind of substantial change is familiar enough and takes place whenever we eat a slice of bread); it is a miraculous transformation at a deeper level, which Aquinas compares to creation, in which the esse (the existence) of this piece of bread and this cup of wine becomes the esse of Christ. This transformation of a substance into another particular existent, as distinct from a different kind of thing (as in ordinary substantial change) would have been completely unintelligible to Aristotle as, of course, was the notion of creation and, indeed, the whole notion of esse in Aquinas’s sense.

And again:

It is not that God tricks us—so that while all our criteria for decision make us think that it is bread, he has secretly switched the ‘inner reality’ to make it zinc or flesh. On the contrary the consecration is God’s quite public announcement that there these criteria no longer apply. It makes no more sense to ask whether this is bread than to ask whether God is bread—of course both these questions could be asked within the realm of metaphor. It appears that we have here a fit subject for our ordinary criteria. It is only because we have faith in the consecrating word of God that we know the criteria cannot sensibly be applied. If we did not know this we would make the mistake of applying them (as the unbeliever does) and then naturally we would say that this is bread and not anything else.

I am suggesting that the consecrated host exists at a level of reality at which the questions of whether it is bread cannot relevantly be asked; our language breaks down when we try to speak of it, just as it does in the case of God. What happens at the consecration is not that the proper description of the host shifts within our language (from “bread” to “Body of Christ”) but that it no longer becomes possible to give an account of it within our language at all.

Sergius Bulgakov is severe in his critique of transubstantiation, at least of the formulation of the doctrine that he encountered in France in the 1920s. He characterizes the doctrine as a “cosmological immanentism, an attempt to interpret the sacrament within the limits of this world.” Having read Aquinas’s discussion of transubstantiation in his Summa, I am sympathetic to Bulgakov’s critique. Once you find yourself worrying about the proper subject of the species, you should suspect that you have forgotten what it means for Jesus to be risen and therefore overlooked the eschatological nature of the Sacrament.

 

[FrKimel]

What you imply to Catholic theology is that the Change never occured after transubstantiation. Because you have a “HUSK” existing in the Eucharist in form of bread and wine “containing” the body, blood of Jesus Christ, which is never a Catholic understanding. A “Husk” does not exist in the Eucharist as you wrongly implied from an Orthodox opinion.

…

Also Fr. John A.Hardon S.J. who elequently addresses and refutes this issue in regards to your false Orthodox “Husk” theory. “After Transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine “DO NOT” inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe, they are sustained in existence by divine power”. Pg 419 Catholic Abridged Dictionary.

Gabriel, I think we have taken our conversation as far as it can profitably go. You are a faithful son of the Catholic Magisterium and I respect that. I only wish to point out that you are ignoring a critical weakness in the traditional construal of transubstantiation, a weakness with which Latin theologians have wrestled over the past century–namely, the relationship between the accidents of the bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps we can put the matter this way: When you pray to the Eucharistic Christ, where do you look? You look at the Host, right? But why? Catholic theology is clear that Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist, but you still look at and pray to the Host–and rightly so! But transubstantiation, by itself, does not give us a convincing reason to do so. Catholic philosopher Michael Dummett succinctly states the problem:

The theory has now rendered the connection between the consecrated elements and Christ’s Body and Blood exceedingly tenuous. Aquinas is extremely cautious in treating the question of whether the Body of Christ is in the place in which the consecrated Host is located. He does not wish to deny outright that it is in that place, for to do so would be to reject any belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but he is equally chary of affirming it outright. Christ’s Body may be said to be there, but it is not there after the manner of a body which occupies a space in virtue of its proper dimensions. Now anyone who adopts a ‘realistic’ interpretation of the Eucharist must tread warily in answering this particular question; but Aquinas is especially constricted by the theory he has propounded. According to that theory, the accidents of the bread and wine persist, and attach to certain regions of space, in the sense explained, as their quasi-subjects. And, as a quite separate fact, the Body and Blood of Christ are in some special sense present, though not exactly as occupying those regions of space. On this account, there is no connection between the two. The consecrated elements are, as it were, merely the discarded husk of the bread and wine earlier present, and have no more intimate connection with the Body and Blood of Christ than that. It is as if the bread and wine have stepped aside to make room for Christ’s Body and Blood, which could not otherwise be present, and in so stepping aside, have, so to speak, left their mortal remains behind. Aquinas’s words read very impressively; but, as soon as we pause to reflect upon the theory he is actually advancing, we cannot but conclude that the conception it embodies must have gone astray. (“The Intelligibility of Eucharistic Doctrine,” in Rationality and Religious Belief [1987], pp. 246-247)

As you can see, I stole the “husk” metaphor from a Catholic philosopher. Neither Dummet nor I are questioning that the accidents of the bread and wine persist after the consecration; but the theory of transubstantiation leaves us with the problem, what really are they? what purpose do they now serve? The answer that many contemporary Catholic theologians have given is this: the bread and wine have become the sacramental signs of the Body and Blood (see the McDermott quotation in my earlier comment). It’s not as if the bread and wine have lost something, namely, their inner reality (which is what the husk imagine suggests), but that they have gained something. The bread and wine have ceased to be substances, i.e., metaphysically independent entities, and have been granted an infinitely greater metaphysical dignity, i.e., they have become the bearers of the Body and Blood of the risen Lord. And that is why it is appropriate to look at and pray to the Host. What I have just given you is not an Orthodox view. It is a Catholic view.

But you should be having this conversation with a fellow Catholic.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kimel,

Gabriel, I think we have taken our conversation as far as it can profitably go. You are a faithful son of the Catholic Magisterium and I respect that. I only wish to point out that you are ignoring a critical weakness in the traditional construal of transubstantiation, a weakness with which Latin theologians have wrestled over the past century–namely, the relationship between the accidents of the bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ.

Why do the Latins have to figure that out? Your question demands an answer. But the fact that you can pose the question means that there is still a lot of Mystery that the doctrine is not intended to delve into. I would think that is something you would appreciate. It’s rather ironic that an EO priest is claiming that this question must be answered, while it is a Latin Catholic who asserts that it is a Mystery.

Perhaps we can put the matter this way: When you pray to the Eucharistic Christ, where do you look? You look at the Host, right? But why?

Because Christ is truly present there. What else is there to understand? Can you please answer that question?

Catholic theology is clear that Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist:

With all due respect, your last statement is utterly false. Catholic theology (I suppose you mean Latin Catholicism) affirms Christ is locally present and present everywhere at the same time. That is the great Mystery. If you are fully aware of the Latin Catholic teaching, I don’t know how you can claim otherwise.

As you can see, I stole the “husk” metaphor from a Catholic philosopher. Neither Dummet nor I are questioning that the accidents of the bread and wine persist after the consecration; but the theory of transubstantiation leaves us with the problem, what really are they? what purpose do they now serve?

Are you familiar with the Latin Catholic anthropology that states that the soul is the form of a human being, and the physical body is the accident? Do you see and understand the connection?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[FrKimel]

Why do the Latins have to figure that out? Your question demands an answer. But the fact that you can pose the question means that there is still a lot of Mystery that the doctrine is not intended to delve into.

You are quite right. Faith already knows the answer. But the question is posed precisely by the medieval formulation of transubstantiation, as Michael Dummett argues.

With all due respect, your last statement is utterly false. Catholic theology (I suppose you mean Latin Catholicism) affirms Christ is locally present and present everywhere at the same time. That is the great Mystery. If you are fully aware of the Latin Catholic teaching, I don’t know how you can claim otherwise.

I believe you are wrong, Marduk. Aquinas is clear: the risen Christ is not present locally in the Eucharist. He discusses this explicitly in the Summa: 3a.76.5 and 3a.76.6. I think St Thomas qualifies as a legitimate Catholic theologian.

Faith, of course, is not limited by our inadequate theological formulations. But there is a problem here, and it’s a problem contemporary Catholic theologians, including Pope Benedict, have acknowledged and attempted to address in various ways. Why is it that it takes an Orthodox priest to point this out to Catholics?

Part of the problem here is that on the internet the popular presentation of transubstantiation (and this is true for many theological issues, and the problem transcends denominational boundaries) is often restricted to magisterial and catechetical documents. The Catholic understanding of the eucharistic change cannot be reduced to the Tridentine formula, just as the Lutheran understanding of the real presence cannot be reduced to the Augsburg Confession.

Another part of the problem is that no one on the internet wants to acknowledge theological diversity and debate within their respective communions. Everyone wants to pretend to a uniformity and unanimity that often does not exist. Polemics makes constructive discussion very difficult.

 

[Elijahmaria]

You look at the Host, right? But why? Catholic theology is clear that Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist, but you still look at and pray to the Host–and rightly so!

No Father, this is where you and others have confused things.

The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ is indeed locally and really present…Either that or He’d be absent, at which point the whole exercise is silly.

What you miss is the distinction between being locally present and corporeally present.

It helps to have actually studied Aquinas, who eventually had to make that distinction for himself so that his own words made sense to him when faced with the mystical reality.

Follows the paragraph that speaks to the ordinary meaning of “locally present”…and clarifies by make it clear WHAT is present in each and every loci of Eucharistic consecration and reservation. It is located in Article 4 from the references you offer above. It also explicates the reason that one really cannot speak of Eucharist as being insubstantiate as I have seen it done on the other Orthodox venue where you are discussing real presence.

Reply to Objection 1. The manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled accidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ’s body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.

M.

 

[Elijahmaria]

duplicate

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FrKimel;9020009]Gabriel, I think we have taken our conversation as far as it can profitably go. You are a faithful son of the Catholic Magisterium and I respect that. I only wish to point out that you are ignoring a critical weakness in the traditional construal of transubstantiation, a weakness with which Latin theologians have wrestled over the past century–namely, the relationship between the accidents of the bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ

.

I respectfully disagree with you FrKimel. It is not the Catholics having a problem with the faith of the True real presence from a transubstantial change of the substance of bread and wine into the body of Christ. It is those Orthodox who try and make it what it is not. Catholic theologians do not contest the doctrine of Transubstantiation, Catholic theologians do there best to describe and define in terms so that Orthodoxy and others can leave their carnal misconceptions and raise their minds to Christ in faith after transubstantiation occurs.

The relationship between accidents of bread and wine is what Orthodoxy remains in the carnal understanding of elements which are measured, transubstantiation leaves this carnal mindset of which the Orthodox view remains.

Perhaps we can put the matter this way: When you pray to the Eucharistic Christ, where do you look? You look at the Host, right? But why? Catholic theology is clear that Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist

,

You appear to be digging yourself into a deeper grave here FrKimel by moving our discussion of elements appearing and transubstantiation to outright contradicting my Catholic faith.

I denounce your view that “Catholic theology is clear that Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist”. This is never a Catholic view or teaching. Name one Catholic source or any Catholic that makes such a false claim as not having Christ locally present in the Eucharist.

As you can see, I stole the “husk” metaphor from a Catholic philosopher. Neither Dummet nor I are questioning that the accidents of the bread and wine persist after the consecration; but the theory of transubstantiation leaves us with the problem, what really are they? what purpose do they now serve?

FrKimel you did not steal the “husk” metaphor from the Catholic philosopher, you have misinterpreted the Catholic philosopher. When the Catholic reveals his husk interpretation as not existing. But when you introduced Husk in our discussion, you maintained the Husk existing in the Eucharist.

It would do well that Orthodox learn Catholic terms and understanding before misintepreting them to mean something else. Orthodox should learn the faith and mindset of Catholic philosophers and theologians before introducing foreign interpretations to their teachings.

The answer that many contemporary Catholic theologians have given is this: the bread and wine have become the sacramental signs of the Body and Blood (see the McDermott quotation in my earlier comment).

Understood in light of Catholic understanding the above quote in correct, misunderstood from an Orthodox view is never Catholic faith and understanding.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE] It’s not as if the bread and wine have lost something, namely, their inner reality (which is what the husk imagine suggests), but that they have gained something.

No, you are mistaken and misinterpret the Catholic because the Catholic no longer has the imagined husk or any elements, substance of bread and wine remaining they are changed or discarded and the Catholic only has the Body and Blood of Christ remaining, while you have indicated this “husk” contained the body and blood of Christ, which myself, the CCC and the Catholic authors you present all disagree with your view. Here is your Catholic authors view again… "The consecrated elements are, as it were, merely the discarded husk of the bread and wine earlier present, and have no more intimate connection with the Body and Blood of Christ than that.

The bread and wine have ceased to be substances, i.e., metaphysically independent entities, and have been granted an infinitely greater metaphysical dignity, i.e., they have become the bearers of the Body and Blood of the risen Lord.

No FrKimel there is no metaphysical independent entity “bearing the body and blood of the risen Lord”? after trasubstantiation a "substantial change has occured to the bread and wine. You still have bread and wine becoming a “bearer or husk” of the body and blood of Jesus. Again this is not what your Catholic authors or I have been revealing here.

FrKimel this is your forced opinion trying to introduce Aristotle’s philosophical natural understanding of nature from Aristotle’s definition of transubstantiation. When the Orthodox should learn from the Catholic Church what transubstantiation defines in the change when God has caused this change, not Aristotle or nature.

Transubstantiation agrees with St. John of Chrysostom declared “It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself”.
And that is why it is appropriate to look at and pray to the Host. What I have just given you is not an Orthodox view. It is a Catholic view.

But you should be having this conversation with a fellow Catholic

.

No we do good to discuss between Orthodox and Catholics so that Orthodox can learn not to force Aristotle philosophy and science of nature into Transubstantiation defined by the Catholic Church.

Yes the Catholic Church uses Aristotle’s terminology, but the Catholic Church never uses Aristotles philosophical scientific definition of Transubstantiation by nature. Thus I can see why you FrKimel have to be relating these false Orthodox pretenses to transubstantiation, because Orthodoxy falsely accuses Aristotle’s transubstantiation of nature to define the change in the Eucharistic species.

I am here to inform Orthodoxy that is not what Catholic’s teach nor believe. So Orthodoxy need not force Aristotles philosophy and science of trans. of nature to disprove the Church’s definition of transubstantiation. But learn what it is first with the mind of Christ not with the mind of Aristotle.

The discussion thus far FrKimel; appears to have Orthodoxy forcing Aristotles philosophical scientific terms to define the Church’s definition of Transubstantial change, of the accidents of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I can see why you misinterpret Catholic authors now, when you search their writings when using terms that you identify that describe nature or attach themselves to the natural substances. So that you can raise a flag and refute Aristotle’s philosophy.

When the Catholic authors are revealing Spiritual realities in Spiritual terms, they or we do not hold the Eucharist to Aristotles philosophy of nature and change. It is the Orthodox who are forcing Aristotles philosophy into the Eucharist from redefining the Church’s definition of transubstantiation.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would like to mention for the sake of this discussion how Orthodox misinterpret the Church’s definition of Transubstantiation when the Change is caused divinely by God.

When Orthodox appear to be holding an Aristotle scientific philosophical transubstantial change defined in nature caused this transubstantial change by the power of nature.

This Orthodox view of transubstantiation is never held by Catholics nor was ever taught by Catholics using the scholastic teaching disciplines.

The CCC and Trent clearly never attempts to define Transubstantiation from any Aristotle or Orthodox philosophical, metaphysical, scientific natural change. This transubstantial change occurrs by divine power.

CCC 1375 quotes St.Ambrose about this change from transubstantiation, " Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed"…

Here is Scholastic discipline of St.Thomas Aquinas from CCC 1381…"That in this sacrament are the True Body of Christ and his True Blood is something that “CANNOT BE APPREHENDED BY SENSES… but only by Faith, which relies on divine authority”…

If the Orthodox position has any bread and wine remaining along side or with their Eucharist after transubstantiation or any philosophical terms Orthodoxy uses to define a change or define the Eucharist, will find themselves not agreeing with Transubstantiation which does not have any bread and wine existing after the Consecration only the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

IF bread and wine remain existing with the body and blood of Christ from an Orthodox position of defined terms, then I would not contest the validity of their Eucharist because this is done by divine power, but I would challenge the Orthodox philosophical reasoning position holding to bread and wine existing along side or with the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

I would not question the faith of Orthodox here but only their philosophical reasoning of having bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood of Christ in their Eucharist.

Peace be with you

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kimel,

You are quite right. Faith already knows the answer. But the question is posed precisely by the medieval formulation of transubstantiation, as Michael Dummett argues.

But since you obviously understand the distinction between philosophy and Faith, why should you assume that the philosophical question proferred by Dummett should affect the Faith? I mean, there are a lot of philosophical questions that the doctrine of the Trinity naturally poses. But we need to stop and recognize at some point - “hey, these questions are nice meanderings, but it is not proper to place these questions on a level that could cause doubt in the Faith.” Wouldn’t you agree?

I believe you are wrong, Marduk. Aquinas is clear: the risen Christ is not present locally in the Eucharist. He discusses this explicitly in the Summa: 3a.76.5 and 3a.76.6. I think St Thomas qualifies as a legitimate Catholic theologian.

I think brother Elijamaria addressed you adequately. Just to add to his concise response, even without any Latin Catholic presuppositions, and even before I joined the Catholic communion, I as an Oriental accepted/accept (though can’t explain it because it is a Mystery) fully the distinction between Christ’s SACRAMENTAL presence at every Eucharistic table and His CORPOREAL presence in Heaven. Christ’s Body and Blood are present in a real way at the Eucharist, but His Real Presence is perceived differently according to our human senses on earth than if, for example, we were fully present in heaven.

Part of the problem here is that on the internet the popular presentation of transubstantiation (and this is true for many theological issues, and the problem transcends denominational boundaries) is often restricted to magisterial and catechetical documents. The Catholic understanding of the eucharistic change cannot be reduced to the Tridentine formula, just as the Lutheran understanding of the real presence cannot be reduced to the Augsburg Confession.

Another part of the problem is that no one on the internet wants to acknowledge theological diversity and debate within their respective communions. Everyone wants to pretend to a uniformity and unanimity that often does not exist. Polemics makes constructive discussion very difficult.

The theological discussion/debate continues precisely because the doctrine of Transubstantiation does not exhaust the Mystery of the Eucharist nor “reduce it to a forumula.” The doctrine of Transubstantiation only expresses WHAT IS. It does not touch upon the HOW. The “how” is always a subject of philosophical inquiry, but philosophical inquiry has no value if it is used to sow doubt in established Truths.

Humbly,
Marduk