Transubstantiation this side of the Volga

[Agabus]

Do Eastern Catholics accept the definition of transubstantiation as promulgated by Rome, or do you guys quibble with it?

I ask because the Orthodox guys I know will heartily affirm real presence but take a real soapbox against transubstantiation (as defined by Trent), and most Eastern Catholics will —*by way of explanation — label themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

 

[Ghosty]

There’s nothing to quibble over. The definition of Trent uses terminology not common in the East, but it is simply saying the same teaching that ALL Apostolic Christians uphold. The language of Transubstantiation was even used in the Orthodox East for centuries up until very recently.

Quibbling over the terminology used in a definition is nothing more or less than a schismatic heart and mind made manifest, and this goes for people on both sides of the debate.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cluny]

Transsubstantiation is an attempt to explain the nature and manner of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Eastern Christians in general and Orthodox in particular say that we cannot know the matter of the change, except to say it is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and that suffices.

If an Orthodox wished to believe Transsubstantiation as defined by Trent, complete with the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents, he could not be termed heretical for doing so. It’s an allowable theologoumenon that many have taught. St. Peter Mohila taught this in his catechism. Likewise did Patriarch Dosethius, and the local Synod of Jerusalem, though some translations of this Synod’s acts have omitted such references, or paraphrased them.

But in none of her councils has the Orthodox Church defined the manner of the change. It’s a non-issue.

 

[dvdjs]

Transsubstantiation is an attempt to explain the nature and manner of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
…
But in none of her councils has the Orthodox Church defined the manner of the change.

I understand that Transubstantiation delineates the change of substance. But I don’t understand the idea that it “attempts to explain the … manner of the change”. Can you expand on this idea Cluny?

 

[Ghosty]

I understand that Transubstantiation delineates the change of substance. But I don’t understand the idea that it “attempts to explain the … manner of the change”. Can you expand on this idea Cluny?

It doesn’t. All the doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches is that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ (substance) though it appears to be bread and wine (accidents). The doctrine does not go beyond that to explain the process, nor does it explain the manner of the change. It merely uses Aristotelian terminology to say “the Body of Christ appears to be bread”, nothing more, nothing less. Eastern Orthodox would certainly in error if they denied this belief, I would think.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cluny]

It doesn’t. All the doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches is that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ (substance) though it appears to be bread and wine (accidents). The doctrine does not go beyond that to explain the process, nor does it explain the manner of the change. It merely uses Aristotelian terminology to say “the Body of Christ appears to be bread”, nothing more, nothing less. Eastern Orthodox would certainly in error if they denied this belief, I would think.

Peace and God bless!

Orthodox would certainly say “The Body of Christ appears to be bread,” but without commiting themselves to the entire Aritotelian metaphysic.

However as more than one wag has said (among them a Melkite Catholic priest), the real act of faith is in believing a Western host is bread.

 

[dvdjs]

Orthodox would certainly say “The Body of Christ appears to be bread,” but without commiting themselves to the entire Aritotelian metaphysic.

So then what do Orthodox say about appearances versus essence?

How does the use of the terms like substance and accidents represent a commitment to the entire Aritotelian metaphysic?

And Cluny please, elaborate on your comment about “attempts to explain the … manner of the change”.

 

[Ghosty]

Orthodox would certainly say “The Body of Christ appears to be bread,” but without commiting themselves to the entire Aritotelian metaphysic.

However as more than one wag has said (among them a Melkite Catholic priest), the real act of faith is in believing a Western host is bread.

The West doesn’t commit itself to Aristotle’s metaphysics either; it just happens to be the most complete and popular language used for making such definitions. Such a statement is, of course, merely a polemical strawman that is unfortunately quite popular (not saying you are guilty of it, since you’re simply repeating what is frequently said by Eastern Orthodox).

As for the Latin matter not looking like bread, I agree. It’s still bread, though, just like matza.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

It doesn’t. All the doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches is that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ (substance) though it appears to be bread and wine (accidents). The doctrine does not go beyond that to explain the process, nor does it explain the manner of the change. It merely uses Aristotelian terminology to say “the Body of Christ appears to be bread”, nothing more, nothing less. Eastern Orthodox would certainly in error if they denied this belief, I would think.

Peace and God bless!

Transubstantiation, the word itself denotes a crossing over or change from one substance to another. Transubstantiation concerns not only the final state but the change of substance that occurs. What in substance and accidents was bread and wine has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining the accidental properties of bread and wine.

I don’t see Latin theology as probing into how exactly this happens, but rather *when *exactly this happens. If I do hear an explanation of how it happens, it’s usually along the lines of “it’s a miracle”; “it’s a suspension of the laws of nature.”

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t see Latin theology as probing into how exactly this happens, but rather *when *exactly this happens. If I do hear an explanation of how it happens, it’s usually along the lines of “it’s a miracle”; “it’s a suspension of the laws of nature.”

True. In the West it’s typically been viewed as happening at the words of Institution (“this is my Body”, ect), while in the Byzantine tradition at least it’s viewed as occuring at the Epiclesis (when the Holy Spirit is called down to bless the Gifts).

Even that difference is a bit of a non-issue, realistically speaking, since the Epiclesis occurs before the Words of Institution in the West, and after in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

Personally I don’t care either way on this issue; I think setting down the exact moment goes too far towards defining the Mystery.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cluny]

In some ways, Ghosty, this is a non-issue, as in either rite, the Priest must say the entire Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[Ghosty]

In some ways, Ghosty, this is a non-issue, as in either rite, the Priest must say the entire Eucharistic Prayer.

Yup, and that’s what I was trying to get at with my point about the place of the Epiclesis and the Institution in the respective Liturgies: they both come at the “end” of the Eucharistic Prayer in the traditions where they’re considered the key element.

Peace and God bless!