Why I don't get the Orthodox

[jimmy]

The Orthodox view of the Eucharist is not quite the same as the Catholic - they reject the doctrine of transubstantiation. Now, of course the Catholics haven’t always had it either, but they now consider it to be a “fact”. I believe there are also differences with regard to the understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice - for the Orthodox I think it is a one-time thing, whereas for Catholics it happens at each Eucharist. I am a bit fuzzy on this.

Also, since the Orthodox don’t think that the Catholics have a valid Eucharist or valid Holy Orders, we could say their understanding of these things differs from the Catholic understanding, which says of course that they do.

All that being said, I have read some of the requirements for admittance and in a few places they seem different - sometimes it seems like it is no big deal, and then other sources seem more strict. Unfortunately I can’t remember where they are - I will have to hunt around and see if I can find them.

The difference between the Orthodox and Catholic views of the Eucharist is that the Orthodox view is more open. It doesn’t necessarily exclude transubstantiation but it doesn’t affirm it either. There are varying views.

The Orthodox view of the validity of sacraments is based on the idea of the Church being the source of all the sacraments. It is through the Church that Grace is recieved. They don’t claim to know the boundaries of Gods Grace so the Eucharist may actually be the body and blood of Christ, they don’t know though.

 

[jimmy]

Dear Bluegoat,

What part of the dogma do you suppose the Orthodox reject?
Is it the part that says the bread and wine TRANSFORM into the True Body and Blood of Christ?
Is it the part that says that Jesus Christ is TRULY PRESENT under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine?
Unless you can show us any EO or OO document which rejects these two Truths, which comprise the dogma of Transubstantiation, then I pray you stop misrepresenting the matter.

Catholics have ALWAYS believed in the Truths comprising the dogma of Transubstantiation.

Yes, that would be a misunderstanding.

But they have no patristic rationale for saying so.

Blessings

Many of them do reject the concept of transubstantiation. They reject the distinction between substance and accidents. Many will affirm a view that affirms at the same time that it is bread (not just an appearance in the sense of docetism or Eutychianism) but it is also the body of Christ. There are also some though that would agree with transubstantiation.

 

[Harpazo]

The difference between the Orthodox and Catholic views of the Eucharist is that the Orthodox view is more open. It doesn’t necessarily exclude transubstantiation but it doesn’t affirm it either. There are varying views.

The Orthodox view of the validity of sacraments is based on the idea of the Church being the source of all the sacraments. It is through the Church that Grace is recieved. They don’t claim to know the boundaries of Gods Grace so the Eucharist may actually be the body and blood of Christ, they don’t know though.

We pray this prayer before the faithful receive communion:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief. And I believe that this is Thy pure Body and Thy own precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee, have mercy on me and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And grant that I may partake of Thy Holy Mysteries without condemnation, for the remission of sins and for life eternal. Amen.
Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of the Mystery to Thy enemies; I will not give Thee a kiss like Judas; but like the Thief do I confess Thee. Remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom.

Courtesy of St. John Chrysostom. The general consensus I have heard from Orthodox (overwhelmingly) that this is enough. It would be irreverent and possibly spiritually dangerous to go further than that.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Many of them do reject the concept of transubstantiation. They reject the distinction between substance and accidents. Many will affirm a view that affirms at the same time that it is bread (not just an appearance in the sense of docetism or Eutychianism) but it is also the body of Christ. There are also some though that would agree with transubstantiation.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

In the Coptic Epiclesis, we pray that the Holy Spirit TRANSFORMS the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

I would like to know if there are any Eucharistic prayers from any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches which does not contain the same, or similar words of transformation.

If words indicating transformation of the species is not present, I can agree that there are EO who believe that in some mysterious way, the bread and wine are still present as bread and wine. Otherwise, I suspect that belief is simply a polemic to try to impugn the dogma of Transubstantiation. I am open to correction, but I would need proof from the Liturgies of the Eastern and other Oriental Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

In the Coptic Epiclesis, we pray that the Holy Spirit TRANSFORMS the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

I would like to know if there are any Eucharistic prayers from any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches which does not contain the same, or similar words of transformation.

If words indicating transformation of the species is not present, I can agree that there are EO who believe that in some mysterious way, the bread and wine are still present as bread and wine. Otherwise, I suspect that belief is simply a polemic to try to impugn the dogma of Transubstantiation. I am open to correction, but I would need proof from the Liturgies of the Eastern and other Oriental Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t know the byzantine liturgy that well that I can say whether there is or not. What I know is what some Orthodox writers like Metr. Ware have said on the issue. They maintain that the Orthodox view is open and not defined. They say that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ but that is all that can be said.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is something I just couldn’t wrap my mind around when I was discerning Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy confesses that there is only one True Church and that consists of the Primates and Patriarchs of the communion of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constainople, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Moscow, Antioch, and the rest. Am I right so far?

Where it gets a little fuzzy to me is how the Copts, Jacobites, and Armenians fit into the equation. Are these heretical groups who are outside the Orthodox fold or not?

They are all non-Chalcedonian Churches - Rome & Orthodoxy acept the doctrine of Chalcedon (and of Ephesus, unlike the Assyrians,who are “Nestorian”).​

Every orthodox christian I talked to said they weren’t. If they were indeed orthodox christians, it seemed like a self contradiction to me. By admitting that the OO is orthodox you are saying that the Holy Orthodox Church was wrong about who was and wasn’t an Orthodox Christian for over a 1000 years.

I can’t wrap my mind around the EO church being the one true church while admitting that they were mistaken about who was a heretic for so long to the point that they established rival patriarchates in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to contend with the Orthodox bishops of the OO.

Alexandria was orthodox - until it became “Monophysite”, & thus, like the Church in Persia (in 489) & Armenia (a bit later), did not accept the doctrine of the Two Natures as taught by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. (What the Church in Georgia was, I forget - someone will know).​

To sum up - the Churches of the

• Copts (including Alexandria)
• Assyrians
• Georgians
• Persians
• Armenians

all or most of which call themselves Orthodox, are for various reasons non-Chalcedonian; the “Greek Orthodox”, by contrast, are. So there are two sets of Churches called Orthodox, the Chalcedonian, and the non-Chalcedonian. Just as there are various Catholic Churches: Old, Roman, and many more.

There have only ever been five Patriarchal sees recognised by Rome and Constantinople (themselves included ) - these other Churches made no changes to their number. In practice, places like Diarbekr or Seleucia-Ctesiphon are patriarchates in their authority (S-C, which is union with Rome, is a Catholicate); but not in principle. Even when Rome added to the number of patriarchates unilaterally, or when Moscow gained patriarchal status, the number and identities of the five patriarchates have not been touched. More recently, Ukrainian Catholics have been given someone called by the title of Major Archbishop - a Cardinal-Patriarch in all but name.

(It would probably be better to take away the cardinalate (which is not Eastern anyway, but derived from the Church in the City of Rome) & make him an honest-to-God, fully-fledged, Patriarch. The Russians wouldn’t like it - hence the lack of the title -but they complain like Hell already, so Rome might as well go the hog and give the Moscow Patriarchate & the Ukrainian Orthodox a reason to complain.)

 

[mardukm]

I don’t know the byzantine liturgy that well that I can say whether there is or not. What I know is what some Orthodox writers like Metr. Ware have said on the issue. They maintain that the Orthodox view is open and not defined. They say that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ but that is all that can be said.

I would wonder, then, which is more instructive for the EO - theologians or the Liturgy. As stated, I would need to see what the Eucharistic prayers of the EO contain. From what I’ve read from others (I haven’t read the texts yet), they do contain words indicating transformation.

Or perhaps, the prayer of transformation doesn’t really refer to the ENTIRE bread or the ENTIRE wine, but only part of them, which would account for the belief that somehow true bread and wine still remain, instead of them being WHOLLY the Body and Blood of Christ.

I’ll await to see what the liturgical text themselves say, so we can determine if there is room for interpretation that only PART of the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, while there is a part that still remains merely bread and wine.

Blessings

 

[Eucharisted]

Orthodox liturgical texts: saintjonah.org/services/resources.htm

Epiklesis: orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/ziton_epiklesis.htm

 

[Bluegoat]

Dear Bluegoat,

What part of the dogma do you suppose the Orthodox reject?
Is it the part that says the bread and wine TRANSFORM into the True Body and Blood of Christ?
Is it the part that says that Jesus Christ is TRULY PRESENT under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine?
Unless you can show us any EO or OO document which rejects these two Truths, which comprise the dogma of Transubstantiation, then I pray you stop misrepresenting the matter.

Catholics have ALWAYS believed in the Truths comprising the dogma of Transubstantiation.

This is not what the doctrine of transubstantiation says at all.

The CC has indeed always affirmed the things you have mentioned, as do the Orthodox. The doctrine of transubstantiation, which dates from the medieval period and did not exist in the CC before then, goes rather farther than that and states, in Aristotelian terms, how this mystical transformation works.

There are other theories which also include all the elements you mention, that are not transubstantiation. Or one can simply remain quiet as far as the hows and whys of it while maintaining the transformation occurs. That is also not transubstantiation.

The Orthodox simply do not say more. Some think transubstantiation is a nice theory, but that is a personal opinion, not dogma.

Perhaps you ought to read up on the definition of transubstantiation before you say I am misrepresenting it.

I also am not supporting either the Orthodox or Catholic position on the validity sacraments - it’s rather academic to me. I was simply pointing out how their views might impact their ability to receive the Eucharist according to the rules of the Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

This is not what the doctrine of transubstantiation says at all.

The CC has indeed always affirmed the things you have mentioned, as do the Orthodox. The doctrine of transubstantiation, which dates from the medieval period and did not exist in the CC before then, goes rather farther than that and states, in Aristotelian terms, how this mystical transformation works.

Oh really? So, can you please give us the text of the decree on Transubstantiation? And can you point out exactly where the decree states HOW the bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Christ? All the definition answers is the following:

WHAT is changed? The substance.

WHAT remains? The accidents (or, in colloquial terms, the appearance).

Please, relate for us again where the definition even claims to address HOW the change takes place.

There are other theories which also include all the elements you mention, that are not transubstantiation.

Such as?

Perhaps you ought to read up on the definition of transubstantiation before you say I am misrepresenting it.

Yes, you are misrepresenting it. It never explains “HOW” the transformation works, and you said it did.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Eucharisted,

Epiklesis: orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/ziton_epiklesis.htm

Thank you for that. It’s funny how the author of this completely misrepresents the doctrine on Transubstantiation. His main argument is that the “Latin” doctrine claims that the substance of bread is destroyed, and then replaced by the Body of Christ.

However, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, that is not what the doctrine means:
the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

Should we listen to the cow tell about the horse, or should we listen to the horse tell about the horse?

There’s really no essential difference between the Orthodox understanding of the change and the Catholic understanding of the change. There are some who bend over backwards to make it appear that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are SOOO different to perpetuate disunity. I’m sure there are those who will complain “but you have to respect what the EO teach about themselves.” Well, yes I would, but not at the expense of MISREPRESENTING the Catholic position. Why should anyone respect misrepresentation?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Oh really? So, can you please give us the text of the decree on Transubstantiation? And can you point out exactly where the decree states HOW the bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Christ? All the definition answers is the following:

WHAT is changed? The substance.

WHAT remains? The accidents (or, in colloquial terms, the appearance).

Please, relate for us again where the definition even claims to address HOW the change takes place.

Have you read St Thomas on transubstantiation? Since he is the main conduit for bringing Aristotle’s understanding into Christianity, and he really responsible for the modern doctrine of transubstantiation, he is really the best read on the question. Especially if you look at the descriptions that come before Thomas by other theologians and compare them, you can see what has been added, or is implicit and made made explicit, depending on your point of view. Some of them also use the term, but it was refined to something like its current form by Thomas.

As for the how - it says the change occurs without appearing externally to be a change because the accidents remain the same while the substance changes wholly. That is a pretty specific statement about what happens, and goes well beyond the idea that the change happens, who can say how but God? It does not, as you point out, explain how the chage of substance happens.

I think you need to be very careful translating Aristotle into colloquial terms. His language is very much a technical one and not well suited to colloquial use.

Other theories about what happens during the Eucharist include consubstantiation which seems still to be popular, which also claims to be in line with the basic understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist. I’m not sure it’s as good an explanation, but it too goes beyond simply stating that the thing occurs through God’s action. There are others which have fallen largely out of favour.

You seem to be confusing the doctrine of the Real Presence with Transubstantiation. The CC recognizes that though related, they are not the same. The Catholic Encyclopedia is clear in making this differentiation, though it argues for transubstantiation:

So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in that of Transubstantiation.

The OC accepts the Real Presence, which is what you outlined in your post. They don’t demand that people accept transubstantiation.

 

[VARC]

I have read the Coptic explantion of why they rejected Chalcedon. I found it to be reasonable without agreeing or disagreeing. I know that an RCs answer is that you must always go with Rome on councils and doctrine. But the EO don’t see it that way.

To all my EO brothers…on what basis do you accept Chacedon? The OO appeal to the same Tradition as the EO to reject said council. So why is your appeal to Tradition more valid than theirs. I don’t think I have ever come across a Non-Chalcedonian at CAF so I won’t get the benefit of hearing thier retort.

For anyone interested, he is an essay of why Copts believe Chalcedon is heretical.
britishorthodox.org/113e.php

I should state that as an Anglican I accept Chalcedon as an orthodox council but I do not categorize the Copts as heretics because I do not elevate the Tome of Leo as a binding dogma.

 

[mardukm]

You seem to be confusing the doctrine of the Real Presence with Transubstantiation. The CC recognizes that though related, they are not the same. The Catholic Encyclopedia is clear in making this differentiation, though it argues for transubstantiation:

The OC accepts the Real Presence, which is what you outlined in your post. They don’t demand that people accept transubstantiation.

Many Protestants also believe in the Real Presence, but it has nothing to do with a change in the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. So it would not be correct to say that Orthodox believe MERELY in the Real Presence. Their belief about what occurs during the Eucharistic celebration is more than that, wouldn’t you say?

I seriously doubt that any Orthodox persron would accept consubstantiation since that belief is contrary to the words of consecration in the Orthodox epiclesis.

There is one other theory of which I am aware that Orthodox hold. The theory applies the doctrine of the Incarnation to the change of the species - as Christ was fully human and fully divine, so are the species truly bread and wine while fully divine. I respect that viewpoint if they hold it (I’m not sure if any Orthodox CHURCHES officially hold to that view, but I have heard it from individual EO apologists). The HUUUUUGE problem with it is that the explanation does not match the words of the epiclesis. In the Incarnation, the humanity was never CHANGED or TRANSFORMED into divinity. The humanity remained fully with no comingling or confusion with the divinity. However, the words of the epiclesis indicate something that is completely different from the reality of the Incarnation. In the epiclesis, we ask the Holy Spirit to actually CHANGE or TRANSFORM or MAKE the bread and wine TO BE the Body and Blood of Christ. Two completely different “processes” exist in the teaching on the Incarnation, on the one hand, and the belief in the transformation during the Eucharist, on the other.

There are indeed Fathers in the early Church who make use of the doctrine of the Incarnation in explaining the transformation of the bread in wine, but I don’t recall them ever correlating the Incarnation per se to the change in the species. Rather their focus was the purpose of the Incarnation which was to divinize humanity, just as the Eucharist divinizes us.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KyivAndrew]

More recently, Ukrainian Catholics have been given someone called by the title of Major Archbishop - a Cardinal-Patriarch in all but name.

(It would probably be better to take away the cardinalate (which is not Eastern anyway, but derived from the Church in the City of Rome) & make him an honest-to-God, fully-fledged, Patriarch. The Russians wouldn’t like it - hence the lack of the title -but they complain like Hell already, so Rome might as well go the hog and give the Moscow Patriarchate & the Ukrainian Orthodox a reason to complain.)

Hey Michael, as a Ukrainian Catholic thanks for that. I cannot see any reason under the sun why Orthodox Moscow should have a veto over which Eastern Catholic Church can get a Patriarchate. The Ukrainian Catholic is the largest Eastern Catholic Church without its own Patriarchate. My father used to correspond with the late Cardinal Patriarch Josyp Slipyj who spent 18 years in the Soviet Gulag for refusing to recant Ukrainian Catholicism. Originally he signed his correspondence to my father as Cardinal. However, by 1972, and no movement by Pope Paul, he just declared patriarchal status and began signing as Patriarch. The fact that the Ukrainian Catholic Church suffered so many martyrs which Slipyj witnessed personally only angered him more when the Vatican’s secretary of state played Ostpolitik with Soviet Moscow. Even HH JP2 whose mother was Ukrainian seemed willing for the Patriarchate but Cardinal Casaroli and others were profoundly against. And what has dialogue with Moscow brought after all these years?

As for the Ukrainian Orthodox, I actually think the establishment of a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch would be welcomed as it would provide further impetus for the EP to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and release it from subjugation to Moscow. There were even plans during Ukraine’s brief independence in 1918 to have Ukrainian Catholic Metropolitan Sheptytsky become Patriarch of one united (Catholic and Orthodox) Ukrainian Church which came to naught after the Soviets invaded.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Varc,

For anyone interested, he is an essay of why Copts believe Chalcedon is heretical.
britishorthodox.org/113e.php

You are misinterpreting the contents of that link. It is not saying that Chalcedon is heretical, and no where does it say that. It’s purpose is to attempt reconciliation between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian positions, and it couldn’t very will do that by claiming Chalcedon was heretical. The article is very eirenic in using words such as “seems” or “it appears” when speaking of the Tome of Leo in relation to Nestorianism.

You are apparently not aware that great strides have occurred among the CC, EO and OO on the matter of Christology. There are official Christological Statements between the CC and all the OO Churches recognizing that the difference was never one of Faith, but merely theology (“theology” defined as man’s attempt to express the Faith). The EO and OO have not yet reached official agreements, but have numerous theological commissions coming very close to it. The most fruitful result of these talks has been between the Catholic and Syriac Orthodox Churches, which have official pastoral provisions for the sharing of Sacraments (Eucharist, marriage, Confession, and Unction) in extenuating circumstances. There are other examples, such as the pastoral agreement on intermarriage between the Coptic Orthodox and the EO Alexandrian Patriarchate, but the CC/SOC agreement is by far the most comprehensive so far. And, of course, UNofficial communion for individuals in extreme circumstances exists ALL OVER THE WORLD among the CC, EO and OO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jomaii]

as my knowledge is concerned i know that catholic nd orthodox are the same in some matter like patriarch,and etc. but in the sign of the cross they are totally different, the signing of the cross of the catholic is the vice versa of the signing of the cross of orthodox…get it?

 

[Hesychios]

I would wonder, then, which is more instructive for the EO - theologians or the Liturgy.

Actually, you show great insight.

It is liturgical theology, a genuine field of study.

If one desires to learn Orthodox theology, one can learn the complete liturgical cycle, it is catechetical!

This is why Orthodox (and many Byzantine Catholics) are so sensitive about the Liturgy of the Hours (and it’s restoration in the parish). It cannot bear tampering. We have all seen temperatures rise over issues (in some parishes) like the rosary served in place of Orthros… this is where that concern grows from, not from an anti-rosary bias.

This is also why Orthodox assume a theologian must be a man (or woman) of prayer, and even grandma can be a theologian.

Theological knowledge empowers the laity, we see that here. Many people come to CAF and learn things they never would have picked up in the parish, and they can get pretty vocal, even casting de Fides around when they feel it appropriate , and start threads castigating their own bishops.

In Orthodoxy (at least from my experience) there seems to be a pretty high level of theological capital among the laity, and it shows after liturgy when most of the parishioners sit down together over coffee. They exchange Lenten recipes of course… and also discuss the Bible, the Saints and doctrine with a generally high degree of competence.

 

[Hesychios]

as my knowledge is concerned i know that catholic nd orthodox are the same in some matter like patriarch,and etc. but in the sign of the cross they are totally different, the signing of the cross of the catholic is the vice versa of the signing of the cross of orthodox…get it?

I’ve seen some pretty impressive sign-of-the-cross expressions among Philipinos at Mass in Chicago.

 

[Hesychios]

I cannot see any reason under the sun why Orthodox Moscow should have a veto over which Eastern Catholic Church can get a Patriarchate.

The Patriarch of Moscow does not have a veto, so in a sense you are right.

If the Pope wants to sacrifice the UGCC as cannon fodder in his own brand of Ostpolitik that’s his business. The MP really has nothing to say about it, everyone should know this.

I think that the Vatican has it’s own reasons for not recognizing the patriarchate. If the Big Bad MP disappeared today, tomorrow the Vatican would still not recognize the patriarchate.

Personally, I think there are already too many patriachs (especially among the Orthodox ), and the multiplication of patriarchs is not really necessary or helpful. I felt this way as a Catholic and becoming Orthodox has not changed my perspective. I realize that this is no comfort to you, and I mean no offense, but an awful lot of Catholics outside of the UGCC do not see the need. That probably goes for people in the Vatican as well.