www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West East/West Views of Transubstantiation

Hi,

I was having a discussion with some friends recently about the incident where the girl couldn't make first communion because she is alergic to glutten. Our discussion of that led to the larger question of the mode of CHrist's communication to us. I know after St. Thomas we westerners use the term transubstantiation.
I am not terribly certain what we mean by the word though.

Can someone explain what this means?

Let me give an illustration of how i am confused.

You are in the parish you are in because there is no other parish within a reasonable distance from you. It just so happens that your priest believes in using Grandmas sugar cookies for the host. Without any doubt those cookies do not transubstantiate. They simply do not qualify. However, you, the innocent (and ignorant) layman receive this illicit host in good faith. Most certainly you did not receive Jesus under the form of bread. But might you not have received him in some other way? What exactly does one receive in a situation like that? Please dont make this too easy by saying one could communicate with just the cup. I am aware of that but my question is broader than that.

A little bird suggested I ask Deacon John to comment.

Another question is what is received in a licit eucharist by someone who takes it without faith, in blunt unbelief? Is he eating the flesh and blood of Jesus or not?

These questions I think are pretty typically Western in orientation but I am interested to see how our eastern brothers will respond with their particular insites.

Thanks

Jason B.

Transubstantiation is not used in the Orthodox Church because of the scholastic nature of the term. And I think Orthodoxy rejects it because of Scholasticism.

ruel

While we await Father Deacon to respond may I ask, How far do you wish to research this? I suggest a book: A.N. Williams, "The Ground of Union, Deification in Aquinas and Palamas". It's the kind of book that will cure insomnia but it is very good on the background of the dispute between these two giants.

Dan L

Dear Jason,

This is my definition of transubstantiation and comes from no official source, but I believe it's what the Church teaches or I'm in big trouble.

Transubstantiation is the changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The bread and wine truly transform into the Body and Blood of our Lord perceived under the accident of bread and wine. It is the greatest mystery of the Church and only faith can assure us that this transformation has taken place.

I'm not sure, but I think defining this transformation was a rebuttal to the Lutheran belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood in, with, and under the form of bread and wine. It is still bread and wine but also the real presence of Christ. This is defined as consubstantiation.

The Catholic Church teaches that when the bread and wine have been consecrated it can no longer be both bread and wine and the Body and Blood.

I hope this helps, and even more so I hope I'm right.

With fingers crossed, Bill


Sugar cookies? Yikes!

Bill,

I believe you are mistaken on two counts: 1. Transubstantiation is clearly NOT transformation. 2. St. Thomas was NOT responding to Luther.

Dan L

I thought that the Lutherans believed whatever transformation takes place is through the actions of the assembly, since they don't believe in an apostolic sacramental priesthood.

Dear ByzanTN,

The Lutherans, except for the "High Church" Lutherans like those in Sweden and Finland, believe that EVERYONE in the congregation is a (ministerial) priest.

In other words, they don't differentiate between the common priesthood that we all do share, and the ministerial priesthood conferred by Holy Orders.

But only a few are called and consecrated to be in the active ministry on behalf of God's people.

Alex

Transubstantiation was developed in the Middle Ages by Aquinas and others to defend against attacks against the reality of the Real Presence. This was before the time of Luther. The East has never subscribed officially to transubstantiation because (1) they do not use the same philosophical language as the West; (2) they did not have attacks on the Real Presence to deal with; and (3) they do not feel comfortable defining a mystery in such precise language.

Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine, while retaining the look, taste, feel, etc. ("accidents") of bread and wine, actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Their "substance" changes from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of Christ's body and blood. Thus the term "trans-" (change) "substantiation" (substance).

Consubstantiation was another doctrine that was developed by non-Catholics to define the Real Presence. It is similar to transubstantiation except it posits that the substance of bread and wine remain along with ("cons"-) the substance of Christ's body and blood. This was develoved before Luther as well, although Luther accepted it and made it popular.

Both transubstantiation and consubstantiation hold to the Real Presence, however - these doctrines are ways to explain that Real Presence. The East believes in the Real Presence, but just leaves it at that.

Today, most Protestants hold to the Zweiglian view that communion is just spiritual - the Real Presence is rejected; although some Protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans) believe in consubstantiation.

I would say that we can "receive" Jesus at any time, in any location, in a spiritual manner. For a sincere believer who receives communion at a Mass that has invalid matter, and therefore no Eucharist, I would say the communicant still "receives" Jesus - however, they do NOT receive him in a sacramental way. Our Faith is based on physical realities due to the Incarnation, so the reality of the physical realm must be consistent with how the Church has outlined, or else the spiritual reality connected to the physical reality would not occur. But it is important to remember that God uses the sacraments for our salvation, but He is beyond the sacraments, so He can enter into a person whenever and however He chooses.

Regarding what is received by a non-believer at a valid Mass - it is the Catholic belief that it is still the Real Presence of Christ, regardless of the belief of the communicant. As St. Paul says, "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27).

Dear Dan,

Thanks for pointing that out about using "transform", poor choice of words. May I replace "transform into" with "become"?

Bill

Dear Francis,

You beat me to it.

Dear Jason,

Whether one uses "Transubstantiation" or "Transmutation" (and Orthodox theologians of the Baroque period had no problem with the former word), the meaning is the same.

The "substance" of the bread and wine actually becomes the Most Pure and Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

But the "forms" or the "accidents" of the bread and wine remain intact.

Orthodox spirituality affirms that Holy Communion is BOTH symbolic and real.

The Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ and is also its symbol.

A "symbol" in the original sense meant something that RE-presents something.

And in order for it to do so, the symbol itself must participate in the reality of what it represents.

This is also why in the Byzantine East, the bread used for Communion is leavened or "bread that has risen."

And this is also why the wine is always of a red colour, the colour of actual blood.

Both the consecrated Bread and the Wine are mixed together in the Chalice and given in Communion because this, in turn, symbolizes the resurrection of Christ (the separation of the same during the canon of the Liturgy signifies Christ's death on the Cross).

There are numerous Eucharistic miracles, a number of which endure to this day, where the bread and wine in Holy Communion have taken on the appearance of ACTUAL Flesh and Blood.

In St Peter Mohyla's "Euchologion," he ordered priests to place a chalice in which such a miracle had taken place to one side and "check" on it later to see if it hadn't returned to the form of bread and wine. Otherwise, at Communion time, the priest was to take other bread and wine and recite the Canon over it for the communion of the faithful.

(Such a miracle was considered to be an expression of Divine wrath at the lack of faith of someone in the Church at the time).


A person who dares receive Holy Communion without faith or in the state of serious, unrepented sin, commits serious sacrilege for which he or she will have to give answer for at the dread judgement seat of Christ.

One's faith does not affect the ontological reality of Holy Communion.

As long as the forms of bread and wine remain intact, OLGS Jesus Christ is present in the Holy Communion.

In Italy, a thief once broke into a church and stole the gold chalice/Ciborium in which Holy Communion was reserved on the altar.

He slid the Consecrated Hosts into the poor box on his way out . . .

Later, the Hosts were discovered - they were held suspended by the cobwebs at the opening of the poor box!

As they were dirty, the Hosts were placed on the Altar and exposed to the elements for the worship of the faithful until such time as their form as unleavened bread broke down - and then they would no longer be the Eucharistic Body of Christ.

But, as God would have it, the Hosts have remained intact for years and, as tests have shown, maintain their fresh quality under the form of unleavened bread!

Pope John XXIII visited this Church to pray before the Miraculous Hosts before his papal coronation.

My cousin also visited Lanciano, Italy where there is the miraculous Flesh that was transformed from bread during a Mass in the year 800 AD when the Basilian priest saying the Mass experienced a doubt as to the authenticity of the Transubstantiation.

The bread changed into a piece of Flesh and the wine into actual Blood. The Flesh is living and is, according to examinations by scientists, "cardiac" Flesh, or "Heart Flesh."

The Blood has dried into five small marble-sized units and is of the AB-type.

As a point of interest, we often hear of the miracles of Saints and of Icons.

In fact, the majority of miracles in history and today are Eucharistic miracles.

I don't know whether I've answered any of your questions to your satisfaction.

But I had great satisfaction writing this post anyway!!

God bless,

Alex

Dear Alex,

Your satisfaction satisfies me also.

Great clarity,nice post!

bill

Alex, you brought up a topic I've been meaning to ask you. Are there any Eucharistic miracles in the Eastern Church? Any references? Thank you!

You go guys!

A very interesting thread in deed.

I have a book titled,"Eucharist Miracles and Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints" By Joan Carroll Cruz. It is published by TAN Books and may still be in print. There are 30+ miracles recounted in the book. It's pretty good reading for anyone interested in that subject.