Why don't Eastern Orthodox Believe In Transubstantiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brcic_003
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brcic_003

Guest
Hey guys, I’m trying to find the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism then figuring out which denomination has the path to follow. Just a few questions in one though, why don’t the orthodox believe in transubstantiation? Or why do the Catholics believe in it?
 
I am taking a class with my girlfriend (she is ortho) and her pastor says that is only a Roman Catholic thing.
 
They believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, the same as we do, and their Divine Liturgies are truly valid celebrations of the Eucharist. They just don’t try to “explain” it using reference to substance, accidents, the precise instant it happens, and so on. If I am understanding it correctly, they would tell you “you truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ, it’s not your task to worry about the how, when, and why, just behold the mystery which is beyond words or explanations”.
 
As an Aristotlean-Thomist myself, I feel like the dogma of transubstantiation is too often linked to being an Aristotlean metaphysics explanation rather than just a Latin word meaning “real change in what it is.”
 
Last edited:
If I were to take as Catholic doctrine what certain Catholic priests in my area say, I would first move to the Isle of Wight 😉

But probably the Orthodox priest you are referring to is very good and accurate, maybe he meant what HomeschoolDad wrote
 
The orthodox only accept doctrine determined by an ecumenical council. The doctrine of transubstantiation was developed after the orthodox broke communion with the pope. Therefore, they don’t accept it as doctrine.

However, the orthodox do not require belief in something contradictory regarding the sacrament; they simply do not require belief in transubstantiation.
 
Brcic_003 said:
denomination
Click to expand...
Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Churches are “denominations”.

They are true particular Churches, with Apostolic Succession and sacraments.
Brcic_003 said:
why don’t the orthodox believe in transubstantiation?
Click to expand...
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches both believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Latin Church uses the term transubstantiation to describe and explain it. The Orthodox have a different approach to the sacred mysteries and do not use that term to explain it.
M
Brcic_003 said:
I am taking a class with my girlfriend (she is ortho)
Click to expand...
Are you a Catholic?
 
1ke said:
Are you a Catholic?
Click to expand...
I was raised Roman Catholic and since I have been with this girl I’ve been digging more into my faith and hers, to find which way Lord God is calling me to. And yes, I am wary of the fact that I could be blindsided to some facts because of her, but I am taking the precautions to understand the differences in RC and EO.
 
Last edited:
Brcic_003 said:
I was raised Roman Catholic
Click to expand...
Then you are a Catholic.

In would encourage you to resume the practice of the faith, if you haven’t already, and speak to your local Catholic pastor. If you aren’t well catechized in the Catholic Faith, you might benefit from meeting with the Catholic priest for instruction also.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
They believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, the same as we do, and their Divine Liturgies are truly valid celebrations of the Eucharist. They just don’t try to “explain” it using reference to substance, accidents, the precise instant it happens, and so on. If I am understanding it correctly, they would tell you “you truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ, it’s not your task to worry about the how, when, and why, just behold the mystery which is beyond words or explanations”.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, sounds like something the Lutherans have been saying for five hundred years.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
They believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, the same as we do, and their Divine Liturgies are truly valid celebrations of the Eucharist. They just don’t try to “explain” it using reference to substance, accidents, the precise instant it happens, and so on. If I am understanding it correctly, they would tell you “you truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ, it’s not your task to worry about the how, when, and why, just behold the mystery which is beyond words or explanations”.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, sounds like something the Lutherans have been saying for five hundred years.
Click to expand...
Could be, but I don’t think the Orthodox would go along with sacramental union. I’m not clear as well on whether the Orthodox say the Eucharist ceases to be bread and wine.

As a kind of side note, I do recall reading in Luther’s Catechism once upon a time, or possibly a commentary upon it, that the Body is not to be prayed to, worshipped (as in Adoration), or used for any sort of benediction. I have to imagine that Orthodox would say something like “it’s theoretically possible to worship It as the Latins do, but that is not part of our spirituality”. Or is it?
 
I’ve been taught that it is both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. As you said, we call it a mystery.

Also, regarding Adoration, the nature of how we commune prevents this in the way it is done in the West. Of course, the reserve sacrament is always in the tabernacle on the altar, behind the iconostasis. This is why we are taught to bow and cross ourselves when facing the altar. I was taught not to turn my back on the altar. We do adoration of a sort during the liturgy of the presanctified gifts, but it lasts as long as the procession and then communion, where it is consumed.
 
Last edited:
CoffeeFanatic said:
I’ve been taught that it is both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. As you said, we call it a mystery.
Click to expand...
And this is Orthodox doctrine? That It remains bread and wine, as well as being the Body and Blood of Christ?
CoffeeFanatic said:
Also, regarding Adoration, the nature of how we commune prevents this in the way it is done in the West. Of course, the reserve sacrament is always in the tabernacle on the altar, behind the iconostasis. This is why we are taught to bow and cross ourselves when facing the altar. I was taught not to turn my back on the altar. We do adoration of a sort during the liturgy of the presanctified gifts, but it lasts as long as the procession and then communion, where it is consumed.
Click to expand...
But would an Orthodox ever pray in front of the reserved sacrament tabernacle (or whatever it is called in Orthodoxy), knowing that Christ is there, and approaching Him in prayer and adoration as being there?

Incidentally, I make the sign of the cross (Orthodox style) whenever I pass an Orthodox church, because the Blessed Sacrament is every bit as present there, as It is in a Roman Catholic church.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
As a kind of side note, I do recall reading in Luther’s Catechism once upon a time, or possibly a commentary upon it, that the Body is not to be prayed to, worshipped (as in Adoration), or used for any sort of benediction. I have to imagine that Orthodox would say something like “it’s theoretically possible to worship It as the Latins do, but that is not part of our spirituality”. Or is it?
Click to expand...
I think you are talking about the Formula of Concord which does say something along those lines.

“On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord’s Supper…That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament.”

This would be because of Christ’s command in the Institution of the Lord’s Supper, Take and Eat, Take and Drink. Christ doesn’t command that the elements of his supper be used in any other way, nor does he make any promise concerning any other use of his supper. It is a matter of remaining faithful to Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper in our view.
 
Before the EOs turned to more of a “mysterious/don’t try to explain it” approach they tend to have today, they explained it like us (from the universally received among EOs–at least at the time-- EO Council of Jerusalem in 1672):
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.
Click to expand...
http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

And an EO Catechism (change in substance=transubstantiation):

Answer to Question 56:
whereby, in the holy Supper, the same Son of God, God and Man, is present on Earth By a change of Substance, for the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of his most holy Body, and the Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his most precious Blood. Wherefore we ought to glorify and rever-ence the holy Eucharist as our Saviour Jesus himself.
Click to expand...
See questions 106 and 107 for a full treatment, too long to post here.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top