The Eucharist - East and West [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Trudy Ellmore

13-04-2004, 03:37 PM

While catching up with postings after Holy Week, the alcoholism thread is quite disturbing. Especially with what appears to be a quick decline in the discussion content. But perhaps that is just my “read” into it.

In order to honor James’ intent to move this discussion from the thread about alcoholism, I will post my questions on the newly started Eucharist thread.

In Owen’s post #793 (date: 9 April), he writes that “I know of no Orthodox Eucharistic dogma that says that the Eucharist heals apart from a moral revolution in the person. Without that, we know that the Eucharist can cause death. That's why converts of any sort should not be permitted to receive the Eucharist until undergoing extended moral training.” When you write of moral revolution, what is meant by that? How long is “extended?” Isn’t it true that when we embrace Christ, in trusting faith, that He through the Holy Spirit begins to change us, giving us strength to fight our passions through the tools of the Church which include prayer, confession, communion, talks with our spiritual fathers/priests and other holy people? Moral training is a lifetime event. I think I may be misunderstanding the content of this post.

Owen then states in post #794 (date: 9 April), “I cannot vouch for the source of this partial article, but it would seem to suggest that one need not believe that the bread and wine cease entirely to be the bread and wine after their consecration, in order to be truly and fully Orthodox.” Does this imply that the moral revolution mentioned in post #793 didn’t take place? Does the convert who believes this way (or doesn’t believe this way, as the case may be) still is rebellious to the new teaching of the Church they embraced? Because how can one convert to Orthodoxy and not embrace one of the fundamental doctrines? This doesn’t make sense to me. Is it a requirement that when a person converts, they make the commitment to accept and state that they believe all the fundamental doctrines of the Orthodox Church?

I do not believe that communion is strictly memorial as is Protestant tradition. But I don’t think I understand how something that still tastes like bread and wine, substantially becomes Christ’s body and blood. I read John Dunn’s post #181 (date: 12 April) and this still is a mystery to me. Is that the point? That the Eucharist is a mystery, we don’t understand what God the Holy Spirit causes to happen, but trust that it does and that’s the end of it?

Also with all love and humility, I do not see anything in Fr. Averky’s post #797 (date: 10 April – Holy Saturday) that would indicate Father was advocating something that would contribute to the continual slow death of an alcoholic. Was something misread there? And the tone of this post, on Holy Saturday especially, is upsetting. Though I contribute this to the love and care the writer has for those who struggle with alcoholism.

In post #799, Owen writes, “Regarding the correction of priests who might be in error, this is certainly not something to be taken lightly, but is certainly consistent with Orthodox tradition.” How is it practiced in tradition to correct clergy? Through just general conversation? Or would that occur in a council or something like that? This seems strange to me, because I am so less learned that those who are clergy, bishops, etc. that I would dare not correct them, unless it was to clarify something I may have said or written in general. But I also know there are those people who are not clergy who are FAR more intelligent than I, thus perhaps they are the ones who do the correcting. Can someone please help me understand this tradition of correction?

This weekend, on the drive home following Pascha Liturgy, I had a lengthy conversation with a young friend who came with me. (Actually he attended Good Friday services too. He is 20 and Protestant.) Pascha was his 4th Liturgy he’s attended (Glory to God for all things!) and he was full of questions. Where our conversation concluded was with a discussion about what Protestants are always preaching “The Gospel is simple. Faith is simple. Jesus says be like a child and accept Me.” Yet, there always seems to be some new commentary coming out re-explaining some Bible verse that has a new twist to it or something like that. What I love about Orthodoxy is its simplicity. When I ask my spiritual father a question about the Bible or Tradition or Doctrine, he answers it straightforwardly without a lot of hoop jumping or bending over backwards to make some scripture verse fit into the commentary mold. Bingo, he lays the explanation on the table and that’s the way it is!!! This is how I see the Eucharist. No hoop jumping. It just is the way it is. I hope this isn’t wrong.

Forgive the length of this post and the myriad of questions. If I have offended anyone with them, please forgive me. There is much to learn and I am very early in the curve it seems. I truly appreciate everyone’s statements. They challenge me to think, to absorb, and to seek further learning.

Christos Anesti! Alithos Anesti! May our Risen Christ and the love He shows us, be shown to others through the lives we live!!

Love in Christ, Trudy
(sinner)

Alex Haig

14-04-2004, 03:01 PM

Christ is Risen!

Please could someone correct me if I have used incorrect terminology or said something wrong.

One of the great strengths of Orthodoxy is its simplicity. It does not worry about the arguements in Western Christianity between "consubstantiation" and "transubstantiation": simply that the bread and wine are changed into the precious and holy Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). This is why often the word "mystery" is prefered over "sacrament" because it conveys the Churches' teaching: that we cannot truly understand what is happening; we should just accept it by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

With love in Christ

Alex

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-04-2004, 04:05 PM

Dear Trudy,

The tradition of the Church concerning "correction" is that of extreme caution & need for discernment. The Lord has called us all from bishop to clergy to laity to be servants & to aquire humility and thus to grow in love. Our chief object is to build up the Body of Christ through a life of virtue (chiefly humility) and thus contribute to the healing of the Church's members. By far most of our life in the Church must be geared in this direction if it is to be healthy & soul-saving.

Correction may have its place but if we lose track of the need for humility & love it may soon become a vehicle for self-will; in this case no correction in fact is accomplished since the change needed by our brothers & sisters is that deeper one of the heart & mind in Christ. The contradiction is seen in the fact that Christ allows us in freedom to move and graft ourselves into His life, whereas the 'corrector' may well be using elements of compulsion and self-will.

In those circumstances where correction is needed we must have this fact firmly in mind: we only are directing them to Christ. This in turn will deeply affect the words & tone of our correction.

Fr R

An added note: I have never corrected a priest except in those very rare cases within my own parish where his behaviour may have seriously been affecting the people I am responsable for. The priest is called to the same respect for the priestly rank (obviously the bishop is included here) as the laity. When we enter the Church we gradually learn to respect & honour ALL others. This involves our growing in the virtues of humility & love; it also involves us learning to see & treat others in a human (and humane) way- a basic trait that our present society seems to be losing to a tragic degree. In a word we need to get over our fear of humility and to see how wonderful it is to treat others with respect & love.

Owen Jones

14-04-2004, 04:59 PM

Dear Trudy,

My priest recently opined to me personally that Protestantism is infantile. That's different than simplicity. If one studies the Fathers, debates over Christology, etc., they appear enormously, ponderously complex to us today. However, life's questions are ultimately simple. The actions we need to take are simple.

Regarding the eucharist, from the early Church forward, it is always taught that moral ascesis is a precondition to participating in the Holy Mysteries. Now, granted, that was based on the whole system of adult baptism. But that's an interesting development in itself, because for pastoral reasons, the Church radically changed its baptismal practice. But clearly, St. Paul says that the Eucharist is not a cure all, in a simplistic sense. It can also kill. What does that mean? The context is that a thief who had betrayed the Church had received communion was struck dead, and he said that others have received and become sick and some have even died. Do we take that seriously today? This teaching suggests to me that without moral ascesis, we receive the eucharist to our detriment. And for the alcoholic, moral ascesis is the key to the remission of his alcoholism. This does not happen overnight. If there were a consistent, rigorous ascetical discipline regarding the eucharist today, a priest who heard an alcholic's confession, might, for example, insist on a six month or year of abstinance from the eucharist while the priest works with the alcholic on the reform of his moral and mental life. For many sins, or for having fallen away from the teachings of the Church, the Church has historically, in its wisdom, imposed this "penalty," not as a punishment for sin, but as a rational "treatment." And I would argue that this would be the best approach to take with an alcoholic who claims that he is sincere. It's for his own good.

Regarding eucharistic doctrine in the Church today, my own feeling is that I prefer the patristic approach, which was to incorporate different perspectives as complimentary as long as not heretical, without feeling the need to define the eucharist in absolute terms, vs. a more modern approach which seems to be to mimic the post-medieval Roman Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation. I see transsubstantiation as a sign of a lack of faith in God's miraculous powers, and a certain defensiveness, and I must confess that on becoming Orthodox 12 years ago, I was surprised at finding the use of this term in the Church. I see nothing wrong with a eucharistic doctrine that is consistent with the Christology of the Chalcdonian definition, and I think a person, priest or otherwise, errs by questioning the faith of another person who sticks with a eucharistic doctrine that is patristic in spirit and does not incorporate post-medieval RC doctrine into it.

Regarding personal exchanges, it's probably best not to personalize things, but to try to deal with them objectively. Stating how much one is personally shocked or offended by another's statement is not particularly illuminating, IMHO. At the same time, some rhetorical flourishes would seem to me to be consistent with our tradition. One of the Fathers called Marcion a "pumpkinhead!"

James H.

14-04-2004, 05:12 PM

I don't think people are in here with the specific goal of correcting other priests. But we should be allowed to disagree with other priests in a forum. Before people fly off the handle an write me telling me I'm a bad Orthodox (which I am, but not for reasons shown here) I just want to explain what I mean.

I have no reason not to respect each and every priest in here but respect does not entail blindly agreeing with everything one says; especially when their point is contrary to what my priest has taught me. And all the more if my priest happens also to be my spiritual guide.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with what Fr. Raphael expressed about transubstatiation. I'm not judging him, but based on everything I've read and everything my spiritual father has told me regarding the Eucharist (and the two priests I have had in my life to this point) this idea seems quite foreign to the East. I know I am not alone in Monachos in saying this. The idea of transubstantiation impies that the bread and wine are no longer present. It goes on to "explain away" the elements that we see, smell and taste with the chatch-all term "accidents" (i.e. what we percieve even though it is not really there). I don't buy it and I believe that (according to what my spiritual father and priest has told me) I am in my full right to disagree as long as I believe that this is truly my Lord's Body and Blood. Owen makes an excellent point when he compares the Eucharist to the Christ, the God-Man. I'm not accusing Fr. Raphael of being Arian... I know that he is not... and I don't think Owen was doing this either. He is just saying that as Orthodox we know that we do not HAVE to believe that the Bread and Wine necessarily cease to be present just because it is the True Body of Christ because God has set a precedent when He became Man; His divinity does not have to overtake humanity... it didn't. God santifies (deifies) nature all the time. He did in in the incanation and he does it through us (God willing) every day.

In the end, what I mean to say is that what Owen has said is very well documented throughout the history of Eastern theology to this very day and in NO WAY undermines our belief that Christ's Body is truely present in the Eucharist. I don't think what anyone has said here undermines that belief (although we all like to act like it does). As far as I have learned, although trasubstatiation is not prominent in Orthodox thought (at least not historically), they are both legitimate in that they both perserve the integrity of the Eucharist's divine nature. I don't think God will judge us on whether we believed the bread was present or not.

So, if anyone feels it necessary to accuse me of being anti-clerical, I would suggest that that is entirely unfair for in stating my position I am merely defending what I have always learned through Orthodox clergy through books and in person. Do I not have first allegience to my own spiritual father rather than to Monachos? I mean this i no disrespect to any clergy here, but I think it's a valid point. I am sorry if I angered anyone here... but I did want to make clear that this is an Internet Forum where people may inquire and debate ideas. We are always obligated to show eachother respect because we are Christians... and we are compelled to show a certain respect to clergy... but respect does not mean agreeing at all costs.

James

James H.

14-04-2004, 05:32 PM

I think Alex's point above (post # 6) best expresses the Orthodox position. Thank you Alex!

Christ is Risen!

Trudy Ellmore

15-04-2004, 02:21 AM

Dear Owen:

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply.

Per the last paragraph....hmm....you may be correct that it might not be particularly illuminating to state how shocked or offended one might be by another's words. I could agree with you there...to a degree. Though it could possibly make one go back and re-read what was written and re-assess the aforementioned statements.

Rehtorical flourishes?!?! Hmmmm.....I don't think Matthew would like me addressing someone as a "pumpkinhead" in public! Though I must confess, Owen, the temptation is quite great! LOL! ;-)

As to it being consistent with tradition, well that may be one of the them that I really learn to like!!!

God bless you Owen.

Love in Christ, Trudy
(sans rhetorical flourishes this time!)

Alex Haig

15-04-2004, 02:46 PM

Christ is Risen!

Firstly, in my previous post [#6] "Churches'" should have been "Church's", well done to everyone (if anyone) who noticed this.

Secondly, this is from Father Michael Pomazansky's book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (page 183; page 280 in the English edition) where he quotes from the 18th century Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs:

We believe that in this sacred rite our Lord Jesus Christ is present not symbolically (typikos), not figuratively (eikonikos), not by a superabundance of grace, as in the other sacraments, not by a descent alone, as certain Fathers say about baptism, and not through a "penetration" of the bread, so that the divinity of the Word would "enter" into the bread offered for the Eucharist essentially, as the followers of Luther rather artlessly and unworthily explain: but truly and actually, so that after the consecration of the bread and wine, the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed into the actual true Body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand of the God the Father, and is to appear on the clouds of heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the actual true Blood of the Lord, which, at the time of His suffering on the Cross was shed for the life of the world. Again we believe that after the consecration of the bread and wine, the very bread and wine no longer remain, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance and form of bread and wine
(Copied from http://www.stjohndc.org/homilies/9704a.htm [accessed 15/4/04], bold added by me)

Hence the Holy Gifts have the outward, worldly appearance of bread and wine but they are truely and physically Christ's Body and Blood.

With love in Christ
Alex

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-04-2004, 05:02 PM

Dear James,

At least as I see it correcting means to personally point out you are wrong; it implies I am right. As a priest I rarely do this with my own people. To point out something is wrong in general terms usually bears better fruit for it implies that I also am part of what is wrong. As you say, 'to disagree with other priests'; depending on how much humility & pride are involved this achieves good or bad fruit for the person disagreeing. Behind all of this as our Lord said; "love thine enemies." Do we love the person we disagree with? Is this for the building up of the Body? Are we defending the Truth of Christ & His Church or our truth? I would only advise caution to all (myself included obviously) for it is very easy for self-will to creep in especially in a discussion group that by its very nature calls forth for 'our views'. It is our obligation as Christians to respect not only the clerical rank but also each other as brothers & sisters created in the image & likeness. In any case I do not nor have I ever felt that you James nor most who post here are disrespectful.

The word 'transubstantiation' was simply part of the quote I found; neither the Eastern Patriarchs (nor myself) intended to defend a Catholic doctrine. Not having been raised Roman Catholic & not being too aware of the doctrine of Roman Catholicism I am not too sure what transubstantiation means for them. But for us as Orthodox the word was meant to convey a complete change into the Body & Blood under the appearance of bread & wine. There was a previous post about the correct Greek word for this which seems entirely proper.

About the bread & wine being still present after the Consecration of the gifts- it is possible we are actually agreeing with each other. What I am trying to say is that once Christ or divine grace is in union with anything- be it bread, wine, water, or humanity- that thing both does & does not remain the same. What is on the discos is quite literally transfigured as also for what is in the chalice: that is what I meant by saying it is no longer "just bread & wine". Here we are no longer on the earthly plane with 'Christ present'; rather we are in that prefigured state of the Kingdom where all things are divinized, where all things find their fulfifllment in Christ; bread & wine included. Can we say the same of bread & wine outside of Christ or the Eucharist? No.

As you can see James what I am trying to convey is that the Kingom is a state of transfiguration, of being in some sense already in the Kingdom. And most of the time by far, there is no disagreement among Orthodox Christians, priest or laity about any of this. But in my time as Orthodox I have seen from time to time and argued by a very few that the Body & Blood remain bread & wine in a way that is really a justification for maintaining that there is no real difference between what is holy and what is not. Its intent seems to be an attack against the ascetic reality of the Church, against the understanding that our life "is not of this world". The Holy Frs never intended this nor do you as far as I can see.
Nor do I believe you are anti-clerical in your remarks.

In the peace of the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

15-04-2004, 07:00 PM

It's important to understand that Thomistic theology must dogmatically agree with Aristotelian categories. Elements, Substance, Accidents, are Aristotelian categories. But the Aristotelian "substantia" is not the same as the Eastern (Greek) understanding of ousia or essence (often translated or used as substance). For Aristotle, substance must have material form, but it is not matter, per se. It is when form is applied to matter. But there is a basic misunderstanding in Aristotle about the generation of substance. For example, he claims that a person is the result of the matter contributed by the mother and the form contributed by the father. It is a very "materialistic" understanding of substance. Whereas substance in the Greek is "incarnational", for Aristotle, there is no meeting between divine and human. Divinity is the realm of the heavens (perfection) which orders material reality (imperfection). So when a Christian tries to conform to Aristotelian categories he is in a quandry. It's much more complicated than I have summarized. But suffice to say that transsubstantiation is the result of imposing Aristotelian categories on Christian doctrine. Having an understanding of what Aristotle meant by substance is the key to understanding the error of transsubstantiation.

Fr. Michael Shanbour

15-04-2004, 07:48 PM

Christ is Risen!! Forgive me, This is my first post and I am writing in haste so I may lack subtlety and pray I do not offend. I also bow before my fellow priests and ask their forgiveness and prayers. I greatly respect Fr. Michael Pomazansky, but will have to disagree with the idea that the Eucharist, being the Body and Blood of Christ, ceases to be also bread and wine.

Seems to me that this is intimately connected with the Incarnation and the Orthodox Teaching on the Resurrected Body of Jesus. He is of course BOTH Divine and Human, even AFTER the Resurrection. However, His Body is "glorified", deified, and His Body is indeed "transformed," but NOT transformed into something that is no longer fully human or consistent with our humanity...rather it is precisely what our human nature was/is to become within the scope of God's plan from the beginning of the ages!

If we are going to say that the Body and Blood of Christ is no longer also bread and wine, are we also going to say that the "Body of Christ", the Eucharist Community, i.e. the Church, is also no longer human? Do we not, at the Epiklesis, ask God to send the Holy Spirit "upon US, and upon the Gifts here spread forth?"

The Church Fathers such as St. Gregory Nanzianzus insist, against he heretics of their time, that due to the Incarnation and Resurrection, we Christians indeed worship the deified Flesh of a Man, the God-Man. This was the case so much so that the heretics called St. Gregory a "flesh-worshipper."

I have not read all the posts, but I think this all started due to the question of alcoholics receiving the Eucharist. I don't think the two sole options is to either 1) believe that the Eucharist is still bread and wine, and therefore alcoholics should not receive the wine; or 2) believe that it is only Body and Blood and therefore all alcoholics should receive no matter what.

I personally believe that due to the fact that we are partaking of the Glorified and Deified Blood of Christ that it should be possible for alcoholics to receive. (Just as after the Resurrection, Jesus -- with His Human Body -- was able to appear "the doors being shut."). However, in some sense, we only receive God's grace (through any Sacrament, etc) to the extent and to the benefit that we are able. (The Elder Joseph the Hesychest speaks a lot about "purifying grace", "Illuminating grace", and "deifying grace". These are not different "types" of grace, but rather the way God's grace works upon us depending upon our spiritual condition and purity. So I determine whether an alcoholic can receive the Blood of Christ "according to the strenght of their faith." I am not surprised when a newly recovering alcoholic prefers not to receive the wine, after the terrible destruction that this substance has caused in their lives.

However, I do believe it is not in the major stream Orthodox theology to say that the Body and Blood cease to be bread and wine since I believe the Eucharist is connected with the Incarnate Christ and all the corresponding dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils.

I personally do not prefer Aristotilian language (which appeared in the west in theology after the schism). But I am told by a very informed Roman Catholic that "transubstantiation" as Aristotle used it, does not imply that the "other" substance disappears or is not present.

I would like to provide some input on the "disagreeing with a priest" discussion later.

Fr. Michael Shanbour
Topeka, Kansas

James H.

15-04-2004, 09:29 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

I appreciated your latest post to me. It was very charitable, wise and it certainly helped clear up any misunderstandings I was having regarding your ealrier posts.

It seems that in the Orthodox Church it comes down to this (or so I have been taught... and I think this properly echoes the tone of your latest post): Regardless of what one believes about the presence of the bread and wine, as Orthodox Christians we are compelled to believe that Christ's Body and Blood are truly and literally present despite our inability to comprehend this.

I personally tend to side with the idea that the bread and wine are also present because it only seems natural in the scope of Orthodox Christology. Christ's Divinity in no way obliterates His humanity (and I agree with Fr. Raphael, that at the same time we cannot treat Jesus as if He were just any human) and so I feel no pressure to believe that His Body obliterates what we see, taste and smell. When understood in the light of Christ's Incarnation, this concept (supported by many Church Fathers - although not all, I'm sure) in no way undermines the integrity of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. I've never read or heard any Orthodox priest or participant in Monachos (regardless of their view) say that the Eucharist is just ordinary bread and wine. I do, however, understand that you, Fr. Raphael, were not necessarily accusing anyone among us of saying or implying such a thing, but rather warning us to keep emphasis where emphasis is due: on the Body and Blood of Christ.

I am relieved and delighted that you understood my earlier statements as they were intended to be understood and that in no way did I mean disrespect by anything I said.

I also want to thank you for putting the topic of correction into proper Orthodox perspective; that is, in the light of humility. Even when we aren't correcting, but just stating our own views we need always to keep in a humble mindset or not write at all. I will make it a point to always question my intentions when posting to be sure that they are made in love and not in the pride of winning some silly intellectual debate. Theology without God (without love) is the work of Satan at his most deceptive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in the Orthodox Church the term "Theologian" was, traditionally, reserved for only the very holy and not just people who wrote good books about Orthodox Theology. In other words, a personal and well-developed relationship with God is implied in this title of honor. Just a thought. God bless you Father Raphael.

In the name of the Risen Christ,
James

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-04-2004, 04:06 PM

Dear James-

Regarding your post #9: Yes that is what I was trying in my own awkward way to convey! I am not trying to deny the Incarnational aspect of the Eucharist- after all this is the BODY and BLOOD of Christ. For the Holy Frs what is Incarnational is the fact that we have the Eucharist at all- and the fact that we may receive it unto our salvation is due to it being Christ- Theanthropos' Body & Blood. Seen from this perspective one can see the beauty & precise theological wisdom of the descriptive phrase, "The Body & Blood under the appearance of the bread & wine." As Nicholas Cabasilas says, "But the transformation has been a double one; the bread, from being unsacrificed, has become a thing sacrificed, and it has also been changed from simple bread into the Body of Christ."(A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy- p.81- SPCK; 5th ed), 1983) I am far from understanding everything implied here concerning the relationship of the Eucharist to the bread (& wine); to me it seems that the saint is NOT saying that nothing remains of the bread & wine after the consecration- and this is not what I am trying to say. Rather what I mean is that after the Consecration the Body (& Blood) of Christ are not simple bread (& wine) anymore; also it is not simple bread & wine with Christ 'added on'. Just as after the Blessing of water what we have is Holy Water (not just water); after sharing in Divine Grace we have divinized humanity (not just the Old Adam). In any case as you say, the focus is on that which leads to our salvation, the Body & Blood of Christ which is precisely that which is Incarnational.

Also perhaps it would help to point out that what I was trying to say was in response to the course of the discussion about the Eucharist & alcoholism. What struck me at the time the discussion began was the almost unanimous feeling that the person could/should refrain from the Cup; some posts seemed to suggest that the basis of how a relapse could occur was due to the fact that the Blood was also just wine; also I was struck by the speed at which such a common decision was reached without any objecting voices. In my experience any matter this serious needs at least a few days of consideration and prayer: after all we are talking about someone's salvation; the Sacraments (the Sacrament of Sacraments); and a course of action that would probably become a precedent for future life within a parish.
What I was trying to do here was: a)slow things down a bit and basically say,"hold on a minute" and point to the fact this was a very serious matter that needs consideration and prayer. b)try to point out that to do anyone any good one must start by seeing the sacredness of the Sacrament.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

Welcome Fr Michael to the discussion; part of what I wrote here was also in response to your kind post, specifically on the issue of the Eucharist expressing what is Incarnational.

John Curtis Dunn

16-04-2004, 05:08 PM

Owen Jones wrote: "as the Eastern (Greek) understanding of ousia or essence
(often translated or used as substance)."
-----------
[my reply]
The most common meaning and usage which we Orthodox give to the English word substance refers to something's essential nature. This is also a common meaning and usage when we ask what is the substance of a thing. We frequently confess the Consubstantial Trinity, which means in the same substance, or having the same essence.

As Christos Yannaras has explained: "...for the Church, God is consubstantial [his emphasis] (one Essence-- homoousios and tri-hypostatic (three Hypostasis or Persons)."

He further explains that the verb ousia means to participate in being, but notes that in the "...case of God, we cannot speak about in participation in being, but about being itself, the fullness and possibility for every existence and life."

This is in fact how our Lord has defined the Eucharist to us: "The bread that I will give is my flesh." and as He explained: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.".

Does the substance of bread share in the Incarnation? This appears to be the argument which some are proposing; that the substance of bread remains and participates in being the flesh of Christ. This is to propose a kind of double Incarnation: the First in the Flesh received from the Virginal Womb of the Theotokos; and a second in the Bread. In this second Incarnation the hypostatic union of God and Man now becomes bread.

At that Jerusalem Council of 1672 under the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus, the following declaration was made:

"...we believe that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the OUSIA (essence-substance) of the bread and the wine NO LONGER REMAINS.

The above was in agreement with The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church"(1640), which was also confirmed at the Council of Jassy in 1642 and by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem in 1643.

The Jerusalem Council of 1672 acknowledged the inadequacy of the language employed to define and explain the Holy Mystery; especially the usage of the word transubstantiation (and also the Greek word metousiosis) saying: Further, that by the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION the manner in which the bread and the wine are transmade into the body and blood of the Lord is not explained; for this is altogether incomprehensible and is impossible except for God Himself; and attempts at explanation bring Christians to folly and error.

But this was not the final word by the Council on the matter, since it added: "But the word denotes that the bread and the wine after the consecration are changed into the body and blood of the Lord not figuratively or by way of image or by superabundant grace or by the communication or presence of the Deity alone of the Only Begotten. Neither is any ACCIDENT of the bread and of the wine transmade in any way or by any change into any ACCIDENT of the body and blood of Christ; but REALLY AND ACTUALLY AND SUBSTANTIATIALLY the bread becomes the real body of the Lord itself, and the wine the blood of the Lord itself, as has been said above."

The weakness of the word is acknowledged, however, the sufficiency of the word is retained when and if what is being denied is that after that after "...the consecration of the bread and the wine the OUSIA (essence-substance) of the bread and the wine NO LONGER REMAINS. Thus, the usage of the word transubstantiation is to prevent the introduction of the Protestant errors (heresies) of which some deny in part and some deny wholly the Body and Blood of Christ become really present on the alter and are really received by the communicant into his mouth.

Owen's assertion that this is some kind of Arianism is false.

john dunn

Alex Haig

16-04-2004, 07:28 PM

Christ is Risen!

What Fr Michael (your blessing!) has said about the connection with Christ's resurrected body is true: Christ was the same, but different. Mary Magdalene did not recognise Him, supposing Him the gardener, until He said her name (see John 20:16); likewise the two on the road to Emmaus until He broke bread (see Luke 24:30,31). So, in this way, the bread and wine can be thought of as the same but changed: transfigured in a way we do not understand.

It seams to me that the problem in this thread is we are all arguing for same thing but using slightly different terminology so we are all thinking the others are saying something different to what we have said: this is a draw back when using an online forum! Were we to all meet in person and talk it all through, I am sure we could reach a conclusion (although, knowing Orthodox people it would take a day or two!).

Ultimately we must accept that what we are given by God through the Church is good for us: would a Father give his children something that would harm them? Let us also remember that all this debate does not in itself lead to salvation; salvation is attained through "faith in God" (Hebrews 6:1) and "repentance from acts which lead to death" (ibid.).

With love in Christ

Alex

Ps. Bit of a strange use of "ibid" there but I've always wanted to use it in something that I have written!

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-04-2004, 07:43 PM

Dear Fr Michael & All,

After further consideration I wanted to submit for Christian discussion the following: after stating (in my last post #155) that the the Body & Blood of Christ is precisely what does refer to the Incarnation in its fullness and that which assures our salvation (if accepted by us); I wanted to offer the following.

The view that the bread & wine remain after the Consecration seems to rest on the following:the bread & wine are ascribed to the Incarnation; and so they must remain in some sense after the Consecration (since Christ is always incarnate); and so to deny that bread & wine remain is to deny the Incarnation of Christ or at least its power. Now I follow this logic & agree with it in its own terms. But is this proper theologically-Patristically? If we ascribe the bread & wine to the Incarnation then to what do we ascribe the Body & Blood? Some almost seem to imply these are ascribed only to the Divine nature of Christ- but this must be to mis-speak ourselves. Surely it is the Body & Blood themselves which are founded in & point to the Incarnation?
What is the bread & wine? We offer them as gifts, "Thine Own of Thine Own We offer Unto Thee..." In some sense we see from the Proskomedia that these represent (but not sacramentally)the Body & Blood of Christ; also it is fundamental to understanding the Liturgy to see that these are our gifts, the gift of creation offered to God, which represent our lives offered to God. Then, mystically participating in the Mystical Supper & eternal sacrifice of Christ to His Father for us, these gifts become the Body & Blood of Christ. Is it not incorrect to seperate Body & Blood from bread & wine after the Consecration of the Gifts? This is what troubles me; the implication that the two can be seperated in this fashion; that one can follow the analogy of the two distinct natures of Christ and then apply this to an apparent seperation between Body & Blood and bread & wine. How can this be correct when the Body & Blood already express this? Surely nothing can be more Incarnational than the Body & Blood themselves? So to then state that there is also seperate bread & wine to me is like saying Christ-God is fully incarnate taking on the fullness of humanity (except for sin); but the Old Adam remains (within Christ I mean). To me it implies that Christ is fully incarnate but creation remains outside of this.

In any case I believe we are all basically trying to defend the same thing: the Incarnation and its effect. Nobody is a heretic or claiming that those who disagree with them is. How good & fruitful to have a spiritual discussion in which together as brothers & sisters in Christ we mutually try to resolve difficult issues!

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-04-2004, 11:55 PM

Dear Alex,

"It seems to me we are arguing for the same thing but using slighly different terminology." I couldn't agree more and also it does make things different when you can't see the person you are talking to!

However about it taking the Orthodox a day or two to reach a conclusion- I think it's more like a week or two!

In the Risen Christ- Fr R

James H.

17-04-2004, 07:35 AM

I just want to thank both Father Raphael and Father Michael (welcome!) for their keen insights into the issue. What comforts me most is that, even within this debate (and I agree with Alex that we are probably actually agreeing on more than we realize), we all agree that Christ's REAL Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist. This, as far as I have ever been taught in all of my life (even when I was a Lutheran) has never been up for grabs (and certainly not as an Orthodox). The Eucharist (beautifully robed in the wisdom and profoundness of the Divine Liturgy), along with constant prayer and loving one another, is what is most central to our life as Christians here on Earth. Praise God for all He has given us!

In the Name of our Risen Lord and Savior,

James

Owen Jones

17-04-2004, 03:56 PM

Well, I guess I lack humility, but I still do not see what transsubstantiation has to do with the Eucharist, or, what has Aristotle to do with Christian theology? Transsubstantiation is Aristotelian materialism applied literally to the Eucharist, and the idea that some Orthodox would adopt this dogma is puzzling to me. I thought words mattered.

John Curtis Dunn

17-04-2004, 08:15 PM

The Apostle Paul did not use Aristotle to expound in simple language those who unworthily received the Eucharist: "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" [1 Cor. 11:27] St. Paul is employing a realism which he had inherited from his Jewish heritage. He can also define the Church as the body of Christ.

The Orthodox Church also confesses that Communicants do not receive only a part or piece of the body of Christ, but His whole body and blood in their reception. However, from the stand point of scientific observation this cannot be established. Also, when the Eucharist is celebrated in many Churches at the same time, we confess only one loaf, not many loaves, but to those who do not believe, it will appear as many loaves and many pieces.

How can we explain this mystery? If we were asked will we not say, "it only appears to be many loaves and divided in the chalice and masticated into parts by our teeth?

It seems that the Apostle Paul did think about this since he felt it necessary to expound: "For we being many are one bread; for we are all partakers of that one bread." Our senses can deceive us to believe that each one of us only receives a piece or part of the body of Christ and not the whole, but the appearnce is misleading.

If the experience of our senses requires that we confess there has been no substantial change in the ousia of the bread and wine, then why must we deny our senses which experience many cups and many loaves?

john dunn

matt

18-04-2004, 06:39 PM

In response to John’s 186, I thought about something a little tangential; that the whole idea of catholicity is qualitative and not quantitative. The church in its fullest catholicity partakes of the whole Christ in the eucharistic fellowship. It is a good reminder on the day we remember our Lord’s remark to St Thomas about not seeing and yet believing. And of course the eucharist we partake of each Sunday is an extension of Christ’s incarnation, which is also an object of faith in that which is beyond the senses. To all appearances Jesus bleeds and dies like anyone else. Even our being the body of Christ, in St Paul's Jewish realism, is an incredible statement of faith in the unseen.

matt

Owen Jones

18-04-2004, 08:44 PM

Our senses are not deceiving us into seeing many parts. Any more than our senses decieve us into thinking that we have two arms and two legs. Our mystical awareness tells us that the many parts become one, without the need to deny our senses or deny the fact that these parts still exist. Orthodox doctrine does not teach that our senses are totally wrong in sensing matter, or parts to material reality. It only teaches that transformed senses are able to see material reality in a different light, as being part of a higher reality, nature and purpose, and not just things in themselves that are not connected.

And so far I have not seen an argument here in favor of the notion that our senses prove that there is no substantial change in the bread and wine. These are all false issues.

The real issue is whether one must, as Orthodox, believe in the doctrine of transsubstantiation, in order to maintain a high doctrine of the Eucharist. Transsubstantiation says that the bread and wine not only become body and blood, but that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, and only the "appearance" remains as an accident of the change. That is an Aristotelian argument, or perhaps even a literalistic interpretation of an Aristotelian premise about how something comes to be generated, i.e., how a child is generated from the matter contributed by the mother and the form contributed by the father. Thomistic theology is dogmatically Aristotelian, and Aristotle was scientifically wrong on the nature of "substance." So you have an error compounded.

We need no doctrine of transsubstantiation to believe that mystically the bread and wine become fully the body and blood of Christ, any more than we need a doctrine of transsubstantiation to believe that in order for Christ to be God, his human body, and with it his humanity had to be replaced with only the appearance (which is docetism with a bit of Arianism thrown in). Nor do our own bodies have to become any less material as we are deified as faithful Christians, leaving only an appearance of materiality, which would be gnostic to the core.

In other words, one does not require transsubstantiation to uphold the Pauline doctrine of the eucharist. If anything, it undermines it, because it reduces the mystery of the Eucharist to materialistic processes.

M.C. Steenberg

18-04-2004, 10:03 PM

Dear all,

The most common meaning and usage which we Orthodox give to the English word substance refers to something's essential nature. This is also a common meaning and usage when we ask what is the substance of a thing. We frequently confess the Consubstantial Trinity, which means in the same substance, or having the same essence.

He further explains that the verb ousia means to participate in being, but notes that in the "...case of God, we cannot speak about in participation in being, but about being itself, the fullness and possibility for every existence and life."

Since the focus of this thread has become very keen on semantics (not of itself a negative thing, lest any read my words beyond their intention!), we should keep in mind that ousia is a noun, not a verb. It comes from the verb einai, 'to be, to exist', and in its own right implies nothing by way of participation. The infinitive verb einai suggests the abstract activity of existing; the noun ousia suggest the abstract principle of a thing that exists.

In modern English usage we, like the ancients, often use as synonymns two distinct terms: ousia from the Greek, as we have just described, and substantia from the Latin. For any readers who know their Greek and Latin and look at these terms carefully, you'll be as puzzled at their conflation as were many of the fathers of the Church; for the actual Greek cognate to substantia is hypostasis, not ousia (sub = hypo, stantia = stasis). Latin and Greek paradigms for the linguistic precision of such abstract principles as the act of existing, or the principle which is a thing's existence, in comparison with that which made an individual unique among all those other things of the same abstract principle, simply differed.

But that is a bit of a digression. The basic question at play in the present discussion is the 'validity' of the notion of 'transubstantiation' as an approach to the mystery of the Eucharist in Orthodox theology. It seems strange that a distinction between the terminological/conceptual idea of 'transubstantiation', and the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is a Roman Catholic dogma of the late Middle Ages used to explain the mystery at the epiklesis, seems not yet to have come up.

The implications solely of the term, that is, that in the consecration of the gifts the very fabric of their being at its most essential level (that of ousia or substance) changes (trans-) in the Mystery, such that the one who partakes of them partakes no longer simply of the existence of bread and wine, but of the existing body and blood of the Son, is rather straightforward and has never been rejected by Orthodoxy. The Orthodox rejection of the RCC doctrine of Transubstantiation (which has not been 'universally condemned', but has never found wide receipt) has come not in light of such notions, but rather in what has been seen as an overly-scholastic attempt at explaining in the rational terms of Aristotelian categories a mystery which ultimately transcends such categories. Such categories, and the explanations which attempt to derive from them, are locked into a trap of analysing via one scientific method a thing which cannot so be analysed. Such attempts will work in part, and will have valid implications in part -- but when pushed to the end in one direction or another will always result in the proclamation of some falsehood. In applying the Aristotelian categories previously discussed (above in the present thread) to the transformation of the gifts in the offering, the notion of a real, genuine change at the most fundamental level (i.e. from bread to wine) is explained with great efficiency; yet the terms used to offer the explanation 'force' into its description a divorce of 'essence' and 'accidentals' that is nowhere attested to in prior ecclesiastical tradition. Or, from another route of approach, the succinct means of describing the transformation of substance (of themselves good) lead to the conclusion that nothing of the substance of the original gifts thus offered remains after their sanctification -- again, not a thing proclaimed in prior tradition (and which, as several people here have noted, lies somewhat at odds with the vision of Christ's incarnation as espoused by the Church).

The suggestion of the doctrine of Transubstantiation that the substance of the gifts, that is, the very fabric of their existence, is transformed and thus enjoins the existence, the substance, of Christ's flesh and blood, is entirely Orthodox. The Orthodox rejection of this doctrine is not in this proclamation, but in the 'tools' the doctrine uses to maintain and explain it.

Quod mysterium, mysterium est.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-04-2004, 12:33 AM

Dear Matthew,

In your helpful post you say, "the succinct means of describing the transformation of substance (of themselves good) lead to the conclusion that nothing of the substance of the original gifts thus offered remains after their sanctification-- again not a thing proclaimed in prior traditon." But then you say, "The suggestion that the substance of the gifts, that is, the very fabric of their existence, is transformed and thus enjoins the existence, the substance , of Christ's flesh and blood, is entirely Orthodox." I am not sure how these statments do not contradict each other.

Again if we are speaking strictly from the perspective of Transubstantiation I understand and accept your point. On the other hand the Patristic evidence is clear as Nicholas Cabasilas says, "it has been changed from simple bread into the Body of Christ." and further,"...the Body of Christ, which is the substance which lies beneath the appearance of bread." (81- Mowbrays 1983).

While this is partly a discussion of semantics as you say, much of the discussion is trying to address the issue of whether there is bread & wine remaining in the conventional 'worldly' sense after the Consecration of the Gifts. The evidence I find in the Holy Fathers and the priests I speak with suggest that it does not. Simply & beautifully put the bread & wine become the Body & Blood of Christ "under the appearance of bread & wine."

Again I do not see how this puts into question or challenges the basis of Christ's Incarnation, the Body & Blood being the very basis of it.

This leads to a question perhaps you could help with Matthew which I brought up in my previous posts; that the view that bread & wine MUST remain as a sign of the Incarnation. Isn't this a mistake since it assumes that it is the Pre-Incarnate Logos which unites with the bread & wine? The Eucharist is precisely a Mystery of the already Incarnate Logos: the bread & wine are not an added substance but rather the Mystery of these things becoming His Body & Blood. This is pointed to at the Mystical Supper of Christ with the Holy Apostles at Holy Thursday- Christ full incarnate says, "take, eat, this is my Body." (Mt. 26:26)

Lastly I wanted to point out that from time to time we have tried to make certain points by making statements to the effect of, 'the Holy Frs never denied that there is not...' therefore the point we are making is perhaps correct. Even logically speaking this doesn't hold up- silence on a subject is just that.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

Daniel Jeandet

19-04-2004, 06:44 PM

Now Im thouroughly confused. (not of itself a negative thing, lest any read my words beyond their intention!) http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Fr Aaron Warwick

20-04-2004, 02:28 PM

Fr. Raphael:

Bless!

Christ is Risen!

You said/asked: "Simply & beautifully put the bread & wine become the Body & Blood of Christ "under the appearance of bread & wine."
Again I do not see how this puts into question or challenges the basis of Christ's Incarnation, the Body & Blood being the very basis of it."

In the Creed we confess that the Son of God "became man." We do not say that he came "under the appearance of man." Simply put, Christ was FULLY human and FULLY divine. It is based on this presupposition/mystery that we can, at the same time, confess that the bread and wine are FULLY bread and wine and FULLY Christ's Body and Blood.

Certainly, as you have mentioned, the gifts are no longer 'merely' bread and wine, but this does not mean that they are not still bread and wine--but also the Body and Blood of our Lord. Just as Jesus of Nazareth was not 'merely' Jesus of Nazareth--but also the Word of God. By saying that Jesus Christ was fully human we are not at all taking away from His divinity. Likewise, by saying that the bread and wine are fully bread and wine, we are not taking away from the fact that it is also Body and Blood.

In terms of the Incarnation, it is obviously important that Jesus Christ was fully man. As St. Gregory the Theologian said: "What was not assumed was not healed."

Forgive.

Aaron

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-04-2004, 08:32 PM

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for you post which really is excellent.

To clarify a bit: first I must say that the tone & direction of my last few posts is due to the fact that I was considering that because my faith is weak I am not able to really admit what it is I have been saying for many years as a priest, ie. the bread & wine really become the Body & Blood of Christ. Do I really believe this in a simple & faithful way? And when I considered that I don't, I felt sad and ashamed- after all as a priest when you are ordained you are given the consecrated Lamb in your hand as a sign of What you are to guard & protect.

In any case I have began communicating with an Orthodox friend in the past day whose theological vision I trust. By the way he also accepts there is bread & wine after the Consecration of the Gifts. But after a number of exchanges on this issue I have come to the tentative conclusion that one can look at the issue in either way and we both agreed that this issue in fact is probably one that has not been dogmatically defined. As I put it, since I cannot find this specific subject dealt with by the Holy Frs it may very well be in the category of a modern theologoumena; which of course does not imply it is incorrect.

You see Aaron I accept what you are saying about 'under the appearance' in the framework you mean it; but what I mean is that Christ already IS fully human & incarnate before the Eucharist. He is not depending on the Eucharist to become Incarnate. So the 'appearance' to me refers to the bread & wine, NOT His humanity. (Forgive me if I am not explaining myself properly).

To illustrate my point let me give a quote from St Symeon the New Theologian: "So that you would not suspect anything corporeal and would not conceive something earthly, but that you may also see with the eye of the mind that this little piece of bread, this modest portion, is divinized (theopiithisan) and becomes entirely like the bread descending from heaven which is truly God, the bread & drink of immortal life. You will thereby avoid remaining in unbelief as you would if you appled all your senses only to visible bread, for in that case you would eat not the heavenly but only the earthly bread, and you would be deprived of life for not having spiritually eaten the bread from heaven." (St Symeon the New Theologian- Abp. Krivocheine, p. 108) From one perspective one could say that the saint is talking about the bread which is also the Heavenly Bread; but from another you could say he is talking about the bread which IS the Heavenly Bread. In other words from the quote alone we cannot I think know if the saint meant that without the eyes of faith we see what is materially there- the bread; or does he mean that without the eyes of faith we see a complete delusion- material bread.

So I will stop here my friend and take it that this represents the Mystery beyond which I at least should not go. I hope others will be at peace if I stay more on this side of the lines; and I will do my best to be at peace with those who are more on that side. In any case we all are accepting of the awesome Mystery of our Lord's Body & Blood and no-one intends to deny the Mystery of our Lord's Incarnation. Only the saints can speak further. It is probable I will not add anymore to this thread.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael