Transubstantiation in the East?

[babochka]

The really fun debates happen when we try to decide if the consecration occurs at the Institution or the Epiclesis!

In the East, it clearly does not happen at the words of institution, as the epiclesis comes after this point.

 

[Babaganoush]

And they might argue that the west is arrogant and thinks they can define something that is beyond comprehension.

 

[Ghosty1981]

In the East, it clearly does not happen at the words of institution, as the epiclesis comes after this point.

You just had to bite the bait, didn’t you?

 

[Babaganoush]

The debates get pretty heated. I remember some of the old threads from years ago. People got pretty worked up.

 

[ELCore]

think that article summarizes things pretty well. When the Eastern Orthodox have had reason to articulate and defend the teaching of the Eucharist the term “transubstantiation” has been used readily and without controversy.

Yes. See Decree XVII in The Confession of Dositheus (1672).

 

[jesusmademe]

I thought the Epiclesis had to come first.

 

[jesusmademe]

My original question could be put like this: why would Greek Catholics not use Greek Philosophy? Even some of the Muslims used it. Don’t the Greeks use Philosophy?
I highly doubt that Eastern Theologians don’t study Philosophy. Traditionaly in thd Latin part of the Church you had to start with Natural Theology in order to stydy Revealed Theology (I hope I used the correct terms). I guess it is the same in the Greek part of the Church (or other parts of the Church).
Do the Greek Catholics not care about how things happens as much as the Latin Catholics do. It must be hard to be a Catholic and never get any explanations of how things happens.

 

[RyanBlack]

I thought the Epiclesis had to come first.

Not in the Byzantine Rite.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Eastern Catholics prefer not to try and p(name removed by moderator)oint an exact moment when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. I’ve heard many Eastern Catholics say that it’s the entire liturgical action that constitutes the “moment” of transformation/“transubstantiation.” When pushed hard enough, some Eastern Catholics will say that the transformation takes place at the moment of the Epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts - which in our liturgies takes place after the Institution Narrative).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This is rather insulting, considering that all of the major dogmas that both East and West hold as divine Truth were formulated in the East in response to heresies that were arising in the East - and those heresies arose out of attempts to build a suitable philosophical language around the divine Truths revealed to us in Scripture and through Tradition.

That being said, the East is generally much more comfortable with leaving things as mystery, not in the sense of just saying “we don’t know,” but in the sense of recognizing that we will never know the full depths.

Plus the East tends to be much more practical when it comes to doing theology (this is especially true of the Syriac tradition). A solidly formed Easterner, when asked when the exact moment of transubstantiation occurs, would likely respond, “Who cares? Why does it matter.”

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

To your original question - Greek (i.e. Byzantine) Catholics may not explicitly use Greek philosophy, but much of the terminology and mindset was drawn from Platonic rather than Aristotelian philosophy (remember, Aristotle wasn’t the only [or necessarily the greatest] Greek philosopher). I remember discussing the use of Greek philosophy in Eastern/Byzantine theology with the likes of Fr. Robert Taft, Met. Kallistos Ware, and Prof. Richard Schneider back when I was working at Eastern Christian Publications. All of them agreed that philosophy is most certainly an element of the Eastern/Byzantine mind, but the emphasis on Plato and Platonic thought is much stronger thanks to guys like Origen and Evagrius.

The larger question comes when you begin to consider the Syriac traditions in the East - which have been much more resistant to the use of Greek philosophy, prefer to draw our “philosophy” straight from the Wisdom literature in the Bible, and to turn to poetry and paradox rather than philosophy in an effort to express the Divine Mystery.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

To your original question - Greek (i.e. Byzantine) Catholics may not explicitly use Greek philosophy, but much of the terminology and mindset was drawn from Platonic rather than Aristotelian philosophy (remember, Aristotle wasn’t the only [or necessarily the greatest] Greek philosopher). I remember discussing the use of Greek philosophy in Eastern/Byzantine theology with the likes of Fr. Robert Taft, Met. Kallistos Ware, and Prof. Richard Schneider back when I was working at Eastern Christian Publications. All of them agreed that philosophy is most certainly an element of the Eastern/Byzantine mind, but the emphasis on Plato and Platonic thought is much stronger thanks to guys like Origen and Evagrius.

I once got in a scholarly conversation with a friend of mine who had studied enough philosophy to know what he was talking about. I asked him if we could consider Western (Catholic) Christianity as “Aristotelian Christianity”, and Eastern (Orthodox) Christianity as “Platonic Christianity”. He said that indeed we could.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Eastern Catholics prefer not to try and p(name removed by moderator)oint an exact moment when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. I’ve heard many Eastern Catholics say that it’s the entire liturgical action that constitutes the “moment” of transformation/“transubstantiation.” When pushed hard enough, some Eastern Catholics will say that the transformation takes place at the moment of the Epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts - which in our liturgies takes place after the Institution Narrative).

This only becomes important when, coming at it from a Western/Roman mindset, you have to be clear when you are worshipping Our Lord in the Eucharist, and when you are worshipping bread and wine — what some call “artolatry”. In the Roman Rite, it is very clearly defined: prior to the words of each individual consecration (of the Body and of the Blood), you do not worship the species. After these words, you do.

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=386903&language=en

 

[dochawk]

Actually, to me it just looks like the East is bad at Philosophy. To me the phrase "it is simply a mystery: sounds like “I am bad at Philosophy so let’s not think about it”.

No more than my not wondering about the molecular form of the flavor molecules when I bite into a nectarine makes me bad at biology . . .

From the eastern view, scrupulizing over the detail takes the focus away from the important part.

What is the reason for not going into definitions in the East?

That the detail isn’t important, and directs attention from what is important.

The really fun debates happen when we try to decide if the consecration occurs at the Institution or the Epiclesis!

And gets really tricky if you’re focusing on a an anaphora in which one or the other (or both?) are not explicit . . .

I thought the Epiclesis had to come first.

That would make byzantine liturgy invalid . . . in both the St. John Chrysotum and the St. Basil anaphora, it comes shortly after–and with a prostration in some churches (which I learned while holding a primed censer which I expected to hand to the priest, and found myself doing the prostration with it in hand. . . .)

My original question could be put like this: why would Greek Catholics not use Greek Philosophy?

Most “greek Catholics” are not greek . . . they are a tiny fraction of us . . .

hawk

 

[ELCore]

Plus the East tends to be much more practical when it comes to doing theology (this is especially true of the Syriac tradition). A solidly formed Easterner, when asked when the exact moment of transubstantiation occurs, would likely respond, “Who cares? Why does it matter.”

Say a Ruthenian Catholic priest is celebrating the Divine Liturgy and dies suddenly at the altar during the anaphora between the words of institution and the epiclesis: are the elements still bread and wine, or are they the Body and Blood of Christ?

Seems like it would be important to know the answer to that question.

(This is not an implausible hypothetical: incidents like that have indeed happened, and there is an active thread about this on the forum right now.)

 

[Ghosty1981]

Say a Ruthenian Catholic priest is celebrating the Divine Liturgy and dies suddenly at the altar during the anaphora between the words of institution and the epiclesis: are the elements still bread and wine, or are they the Body and Blood of Christ?

I imagine that the Liturgy would be completed by another priest from where it left off, as would happen in a Latin Liturgy. No matter what state the Eucharist is in the Liturgy must be finished and the Eucharist consumed, so the “when” of the Consecration isn’t as important as it might seem.

This is just my layman response, though. Someone with more experience and knowledge could answer better.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

My original question could be put like this: why would Greek Catholics not use Greek Philosophy? Even some of the Muslims used it. Don’t the Greeks use Philosophy?

As others have stated the Byzantine East favors Platonic language and philosophical foundations. That being said the East never really had an Aquinas-type figure who went to great lengths to synthesize secular and theological thought while being a bit of a mystic himself (not to mention the fact that he actually read Eastern theologians and incorporated their ideas into his work). He is a unique figure who had an immense influence on the Latin approach to theology, even if there were some who started the ball rolling before him.

While Aquinas is not as big in the East now there was a time when his works were some of the few Western elements that were praised in the East, but his work wasn’t really replicated in an Eastern flavor. Each tradition has its own approach to theology, and some emphasize secular philosophy and systematic organizations more than others; Latins are at one extreme end with a heavy focus on secular philosophy.

Personally I like St. John of Damascus and St. Gregory Palamas along side my St. Thomas Aquinas. Being Catholic means these great minds aren’t in competition, so enjoy the full fruit of the Faith!

Peace and God bless!

 

[jesusmademe]

Thanks for all the answers.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The elements are treated as holy (i.e. set apart for the service of God) from the moment they prayed over and divided at the prothesis table before the public part of the Divine Liturgy even begins. If the priest dies at any point during the Divine Liturgy, the elements are considered holy and are treated accordingly.

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, I think we’re in agreement about that. I believe the Latin word transsubstantiatio (with or without the double -ss- in the middle) was first coined at roughly the same time as the Great Schism, 200 years before Aquinas wrote about it. Is the Greek word μετουσίωσις older or more recent than the Latin word? I don’t know the answer to that one, but it would be interesting to find out.