Why don't Eastern Orthodox Believe In Transubstantiation?

[CoffeeFanatic]

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.

My parish also has a chapel (where we have weekly Matins, Vespers, and the occasional liturgy- except not during COVID) and parishioners can have keys (I do) so they can go pray if they like. There are no pews in the chapel. You stand unless you’re doing prostrations. The reserved sacrament is always in the tabernacle which is on the altar behind the iconostasis. It’s not out where anyone can see it. However, private prayer outside of corporate services is possible.

The reason I became Orthodox is that I felt the presence of God while visiting an Orthodox parish while communion was going on. I also experience great peace for a few hours every time I commune. Like you, I also believe that Catholics and Orthodox both have true sacraments. Since I’ve been Orthodox, every single time I’ve ever walked into a Catholic church (with adoration chapels) I have ALWAYS felt the presence of God there too. We were in Rome last October (during the whole Pachamama thing- lol)- but it never failed that I felt the presence of God in every single adoration chapel in the churches we went in. (Also had experiences with the relics of St. Paul and St. Faustina.)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

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 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.

What I read was apparently some kind of paraphrase.

Eucharistic devotion and adoration evolved over time. No, at the very beginning, Our Lord only said to “take and eat”. He did not say “…and that’s not all, you see, I am truly present in this sacrament, and not only may you eat My Body and drink My Blood, but you may pray to me in These Species, you may bless others with Me, you may adore Me, in other words, only by a miracle does This Body and Blood not stand right here in My appearance, walk with you, and talk with you”. But over time, the Church came to see that all of these devotions were the logical consequence of Christ being among us in the flesh under forms of bread and wine. We did not say “oh, we can’t do that, because Christ didn’t explicitly say to do that, it makes sense, but still, no can do”.

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.

Wow… that’s basically transubstantiation, explained just a little bit differently. No disagreement between RC and EO here.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The reason I became Orthodox is that I felt the presence of God while visiting an Orthodox parish while communion was going on. I also experience great peace for a few hours every time I commune. Like you, I also believe that Catholics and Orthodox both have true sacraments. Since I’ve been Orthodox, every single time I’ve ever walked into a Catholic church (with adoration chapels) I have ALWAYS felt the presence of God there too. We were in Rome last October (during the whole Pachamama thing- lol)- but it never failed that I felt the presence of God in every single adoration chapel in the churches we went in. (Also had experiences with the relics of St. Paul and St. Faustina.)

Feelings ultimately mean nothing next to reason and the analogia fidei, but I can say that in every Catholic church I’ve ever been in, there was something palpable about the Real Presence, as though “something is here that is unlike any other place”. I have only been to Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy once in my life, and have only been in an Orthodox church two other times IIRC, and I don’t really recall “feeling” anything, though I was cognizant of the fact that I was in a holy place, part of the apostolic tradition of the 2000-year church, holy things were done here, and the place was worthy of my utmost respect.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

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”.

The Eastern willingness to just acknowledge mystery is, to my mind, wonderful. I’ve never loved the Latin tendency to try to lay everything out in near little rows.

 

[Hodos]

What I read was apparently some kind of paraphrase.

No, its not a paraphrase. The way the article reads it provides a section that goes into our beliefs on the subject, then provides a list of doctrines we reject. I just posted the quote at the top of that section with the bullet point covering that aspect we were discussing. Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

What I read was apparently some kind of paraphrase.

No, its not a paraphrase. The way the article reads it provides a section that goes into our beliefs on the subject, then provides a list of doctrines we reject. I just posted the quote at the top of that section with the bullet point covering that aspect we were discussing. Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

The “paraphrase” is the thing I read several years ago. I am merely saying that what I read may have been some paraphrase of the Formula of Concord. I think it must have been some kind of annotated catechism, perhaps the text of Luther’s Small Catechism with narrative interposed in between the questions from various sources, one of those being the Formula of Concord.

 

[Hodos]

Gotcha. Ten characters.

 

[CoffeeFanatic]

The word feeling doesn’t accurately express what is going on with me when I’m in the presence of the Eucharist. It’s not an emotional response. I did not hold a belief in the Real Presence before experiencing this for the first time. It’s more an inexplicable knowing or sensing. I now view it as the grace it is.