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

Dear Alex,

my own reluctance with TAN is that they seem quite hostile with regard to Vatican II and have a reactionary mindset.

BTW, TAN was certainly not the publishing house which originally published the Douay-Rheims Bible.

I have not read the entire thread and I am sure some here have given wonderfully accurate answers. So I will just address the quoted post.

The basic �stumbling block� here is a shift in world view that took place about the 14th century. For lack of a better title or label I guess I would call it the start of the age of Darwinism and Newton. There were so many scientific advances.

Before that time humanities essential word view was that all things existed - because of man. A man�s experience - of the world and it things and events - was primary. Man was not just another �thing� in the world of other things - but he was rather the center of all things. All things and all events existed - for - man.

After the 14th century this world view began to shift. With the rise of capitalism - man became, in man�s mind, just another object, just another �thing� among all things. With the industrial age man became himself - just another gear in the mechanism of nature. And for the first time man could imagine that the world would exist even if no man existed to experience it.

Of course the reality is that we are people who live with a mixture of this. We live and believe both are true. We can do this because for us - the world is fragmented - as fragmented and as un-integrated as our mind and personalities are.

The doctrines of the Catholic church (east, west, up, down, etc..) are based in wording that pre-dates this shift in world views. It is wording which assumes - Providence - and the experiential nature of our being. In this way these doctrines do not - assume - and objective self-sufficient creation that exists by itself untethered to human experience.

>who assert that Christ cannot be received EXCEPT through the transubstantiated elements.
This type of belief is based upon the second world view. In this view man - and God - are - things. Man is a thing among other things and so is God. The world and its events and things - are as a self subsisting theater upon which God (a separate thing) may enter at any time. And since God is a thing - he can be separated from other things and can have a location (when he enters into the world). God - MUST have a location in this world view. Heaven is a place - perhaps in another dimension - but it to is a thing and must have a location somehow in time and space.

This �second� world view must hold that soul - has some sort of physical constituents. It may be pictured as some whisp or vapor - it is a �thing� and as any other thing - it has properties of some fine material.

The dichotomy in this is that these people can swear that they do not interpretate �soul� of the human spirit in this way - yet in their world view they actually do. They are divided in themselves - divided in belief.

>Since Jesus is God and Man in hypostatic union it is therefore impossible
>to share in either his deity or his humanity without sharing in the other.
Yes.. In a way, this is right.

It is an understanding that is safe to personally hold and is beneficial on one�s path to God. It is certainly better and more true that God being a �thing� - because it does bring into the picture that the spiritual nature of God unites with us in a spiritual way - as well as the ascended human nature of Jesus (God) unites with us in a material way.

The second world view holds that something can be present (say for example in some locked and closed room where no human has acesss to) even if no human is there to see or experience that - thing. It gives the word presence - a physical location.

The first world view (and the view which is correct) holds that - presence - is entirely a human experience. Like sight and sound - which are totally human experiences - to speak of �presence� is by necessity to speak of a human - experience. The experience (as it were) does not exist outside and external to human experience - it exists internally and only - as a human experience.

The word - sight - describes not the faculties (the biology) but our own spiritual experience of the function. The word - sound - describes nothing of the mechanics - but rather describes an experience which, in itself, is not physical nor biological in any way. We could say that sight and sound are an experience to the - soul - or spirit - as most people make no real difference between the two. Spirit being the operation and soul can be thought of as the �glue� which unites mind (spirit) and body in a unique working relationship.

Back to our subject now�

Presence - in the proper definition - has no external location. It is - a human experience. It may be related to some external (and sense) experience� it may be triggered - but at no time does �presence� every take of become - an external �thing� of location in the material world. Of course we do not think like this in everyday practical reality. In order to function smoothly in the world we always give �presence� and external location that is entirely dependent upon something that is of sense experience.

People will disagree with me (nothing new there) but the Catholic Church in its authority and powers - is limited to judgments about - itself - and itself - only. Tuck that rule of thumb away in your brain and it will be useful to clear up many misunderstandings.

The Catholic church can make judgments as to some items about its own members and its own doctrines and realities. But the authority of the Catholic church - ends - at the fringe of - herself.

The Church has the authority to determine if - God and Jesus - are present in conjunction with the Eucharist that is under her authority. She can - guarantee - that presence - under the conditions which she herself has set. And one of these conditions is - the proper attitude and spiritual condition of the recipients.

Right now the ccel.org site is not responding of I would give you the council documents this appears in, but we will have to do with a quote to the same effect from an Orthodox theologian� who paraphrases the council statements�

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7106.asp

If the presence of God in the Eucharist were a �thing� than the formula of mass - would - be magic or science in the least. A change of substance brought about but the proper physical actions alone. And it would be - mechanical.

The only way the quote above would be true is when the correct and proper definition of - presence - is being assumed.

St. Paul in one of his letters says the same thing. I do not remember the exact quote - but it is to the effect that those who received the bread and wine in good conscience and a state of grase - receive the body and blood of Jesus� on the other hand those who receive the bread and wine and are not in a state of grace nor faith - receive only bread and wine.

Transubstantiation - as a doctrine - is something that exists for an aide - for us humans - to understanding. If it is understood from the perspective of - world view number two - it is flawed. But then again - world view number two - is already flawed. And so we find the earlier Eastern theology not accepting it (a theology which retains the earlier world view and does little in the way of putting it into more modern words) and the Latin church - using - the doctrine of transubstantiation in order to point the more modern culture in the right direction. Which �pointing� is its job in as much as it must preach the gospel to people as they cultural - are.

It is a wrong assumption on people�s part - to assume that just because the Catholic church can guarantee - the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist - when the sacrifice of the mass fulfills all conditions (including the existence of the intention of the priest and people present to be in a union of heart and mind with the church) which the church has set forth� it would be a wrong assumption of your opponents to assume that because Jesus is guaranteed to be present in association with the sensible nature of bread and wine of the Eucharist - that this also means Jesus is no where else fully present in association with some other sensible thing of which he freely chooses to be present.

It is a doctrine of the church - that Jesus - may be fully present - with Providence - at any time and any place and for anyone. However - the church has no authority to guarantee that he is so - in any other way or �thing� than its own Eucharist.

In the same way the Church can guarantee that the means are available to sanctification - within the church� and while these means may also exist outside the church - she has no power nor authority to make a judgment on this in any particular case.

All sacraments within the church - what ever they are - including Eucharist - take their sacramental nature form - Providence. And Providence (often called a sacrament itself) is available to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

Providence is itself - a human experience.

The fact is that - all things and all events - at all times - are entirely governed by the will of God. But (keep in mind the first world view I mentioned) we do not always - experience - that truth. While the fact be true - we can yet (and most often do) wander through life with hardly ever having - and experience - that it is true.

Holiness, of sanctification then - is embedded with - experience.

We are always united to God because it is God who brings us into being at every moment - and this is called �essential union� by theologians. But - do we always - experience - that union? No. We do not. The habitual experience of that union is what is called the mystical marriage. And that comes about after many personal theophanies - which have the effect to form us (�let us form man in our own image�) which form our person and personality.

Intellectual knowledge - is not - a formative thing. It alone does nothing to form our personality. It is human - experience - which acts like a hand forming us.

In the images of Genesis man is like the �waters� of creation. The image takes its likeness from water being that which has no form of itself but takes the form and color of whatever vessel it is poured into. So in this similitude - man�s personality - is like - the formless waters of creation. Our personality and person takes the �form� of what every it is �poured� out into.

A man who loves vice will become like - the vices that he loves. Notice I say �like� and not the same as. In anything that a man loves and goes out to - the �thing� has an in-forming effect upon the personality of the man. In the same way - a man who looks out onto other people and has his mind of identifying so many ways to divide people into ethnic, religious, political, cultural - etc.. - ways - can not help but to be affected by that - and in so doing he necessarily is also - dividing himself.

And so your opponent, who feels he must identify Jesus in his God natures - as a thing that is only and entirely only associated with particular sense objects - and in so doing forces God to become a �thing� - not only divides God - and places an abyss between God and all other things that are not the particular sense object he has identified as God - but he is therefore a man who is divided himself - and MUST see himself as separated from others. So you will not be coming to much of any agreements with him. His �holiness� is to - disagree with you. He needs YOU to be wrong so he can be �right�.

Indeed, as I understand you to intend to say� you are very much in the ball park.

If we say it in the words of the second world view - it may be a fact that God - is the real �substance� of everything that exists. He is undividable and un-separable from the definition of - essential union- that brings and keeps every - thing in existence.

Now to put it into the words of the first world view (Providence and that all important aspect of what a human being experiences) the church guarantees ( and so the grace comes to be) that we are to have an - experience (!!!) of the presence of Jesus Christ (which must include an experience that and now become dependent upon the senses of bread and wine - but is not restricted to bread and wine). And to human experience that presence can be said to be in degrees according to the state of grace and conscience etc.. of the person receiving it. The presence is equal to the effectiveness. They are one in the same. And so the effectiveness of the sacrament is equal to the presence - that the person experiences.

Having said all that� we, as good Christians keeping in mind our own progress, and the time it took, to better understand these things - must always be mindful that we do not disturb to greatly the beliefs of someone who does not see these things in the same way. At one time we did not �see� this so deeply - yet - it was a step that did us good just as well. It may be that the other person sees other things of the faith much better than we do - and on just this one item we may see it a little better than they. So the bottom line rule of thumb is that when debating things like this - do not do it as far and really disturbing either the other person or yourself.

In the way of speaking which is experiential - let it be that you come to experience the same presence of Jesus Christ that is about the Eucharist - in other areas of your life - without lessening the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist at all. It is the specific �function� - of the Eucharist - that his full and real presence there - open to us his full and real presence anywhere and everywhere. It is, as it were, a doorway, a guaranteed doorway, to his real presence which is a substantial presence for all �things�.

Now as my last statement, let me put the word �magic� into perspective as the fathers understood it. The meaning of �magic� back then is not too far away from wht it means today in proper perspective. David Copperfield employs plain old knowledge to accomplish something and has the intention of deception - so that you would thing some supernatural powers were involved. And we know - there is nothing supernatural about it. The word magic itself, as used in the old testament - indicates a specialty knowledge that was not commonly known. As for example the �Magi�. It was a wisdom in certain things. By the time of the New Testament the case had become pretty common that fakers were using their knowledge in areas - to deceive people. And the name magic and magician became synonuoumous with those who had intention of using un-common knowledge to deceive people into believing that they had supernatural powers and wer appointed by God for some special purpose.

Just before the 14th century - many kinds of specialty knowledge (the emergence of scientific knowledge) began to become public - and because the word �magic� was still associated in a negative was with this type of knowledge. Because the common person had little understanding of science as yet - these pre-curors of scientists - were seen as a type of - magic. And so, at this early time of the emergence of science - the Christian population alone with certain members of the church - repressed some of it. Burning books and calling for Church investigations into such as Copernicus, Aristotle, and some of the best scientific works. Manuscripts which had once been refuged at monasteries - came to be valueless - and were used for practical purposes including erased and written over for prayer books. Valuable works were lost forever because - at the time - they held no value to people. It was not until much later that the value of these works turned again and efforts were made to salvage what could be found. Science, reality, and theology can and do co-exist in harmony when each is correctly understood. So when the early church fathers said that the sacraments are not magic - what the mean is that the sacraments are NOT - the result of a proper applications of some type of knowledge that the church possesses. Neither does holiness of a person come about by Gnostic (the application of knowledge) means. Only by Providence (the intentions of God) and our own good intentions alone with good conscience - does the bread and wine become body and blood to our human experience and - presence.

Nothing of the church can be understood properly without the vital ingredient of the church�s main doctrine - Providence. If that is removed from the church and her doctrines - it all becomes - �magic�.


Now I go back into my hiding.

-ray

Dear Father Deacon,

Yes, they are at that!

But I think it is also true to say that liberal Catholics can be as intolerant of Catholics who are traditional by way of liturgical practice (either Novus Ordo or Tridentine, it matters not) and also by way of church discipline and morality.

TAN's books can be very "old-style devotional." For me, they are the "Jordanville" of Catholicism!

Heaven knows we need a good dose of that these days . . .

Alex

Aren't many of TANs books just reprints of older works that were originally published by someone else?

Of course, hours after I wrote my long explanation, it came to me that some may read it and think that I deny transubstantiation, which I do not deny and firmly affirm.

What I did was apply other axioms within theology (namely �essential union�) to the concept of - substance. This allows people who understand these terms to further understand transubstantiation and how it is that it is the - presence - of the -person - of Jesus Christ that causes the transubstantiation to take place - while the - form - remains unchanged.

And secondly I applied the doctrines of the church that the church has the authority to judge its own things and members and the limits of that judgments remain at her own boarders. God is free to do whatever he wants to do outside of the Church and he need not inform us nor confer with the church about it.

Thirdly I applied the doctrine of the church that she does not investigate the reality as to the fact if transubstantiation has taken place or not - she rather declares it to have taken place or not - and God makes her declaration a reality. God allows her (the authority of the church) to make her declaration and he backs it up.

One should think of the miracle at the wedding when Jesus turned to his mother (the church) and let her decide what he should do. �Woman - what would YOU have me do?� and her immediate will for her son was that he change the substance and form of water into wine. And so he did - and his public ministry was launched with this Eucharistic like miracle.

-ray

There was a previous thread on this same subject that dealt well with some of the finer points, especially why many of the Orthodox, based upon incarnational theology, reject the transubstantiation approach to the eucharist.

Dear Andrew,

From what I remember, you were the only one who disagreed with it . . .

Alex

That's why I cited:

Metropolitan Theodosius' liturgical practice of adding unconsecrated wine from a bottle to the consecrated chalice prior to the distribution of the eucharist;

a note from Prof. Meyendorff's Liturgical Theology class;

and the citation to Fr. Hopko's "The Orthodox Church" referring to the priests consuming "wine" from the consecrated chalice.

But they don't post here (that we know of) .

In Christ,
Andrew

On one side are the �progressive charismatic� who would like to pull the church out of the 14th century - and on the other hand we have the �conservatives� would like to put the church back into the 14th century.

One day when thinking about this - it seemed to me to be like Fiddler On The Roof. Yup - exactly like Fiddler On The Roof.

-ray

Some of the TAN Books are okay, but be aware that some of the newer titles are written by priests who belong to schismatic/sedevacantist groups. Best to use your God-given common sense.

Would someone mind tackling Ray's lengthy comments? What he addressed is really the essence of my 'burning' question. I would appreciate all of your thoughts.

Thanks

Jason B.

Jason,

My mind is too stuffed up right now to concentrate on any of it.

But this statement:
One should think of the miracle at the wedding when Jesus turned to his mother (the church) and let her decide what he should do. �Woman - what would YOU have me do?� and her immediate will for her son was that he change the substance and form of water into wine. And so he did - and his public ministry was launched with this Eucharistic like miracle..

Here is an interesting link on this:
�The Sign of Cana�



BIBLE READINGS

Is 62:1-5 // I Cor 12:4-11 // Jn 2:1-11
I. BIBLICO-LITURGICAL REFLECTIONS



When I heard this true story, I shuddered at the senselessness and viciousness of what had happened. A wedding feast was held in the town near our convent. The bridegroom�s party, which, in the Filipino tradition, is usually the one responsible for the expenses of the wedding banquet, provided what was necessary for the feast. But there were so many guests that the food and drink ran out. The bride�s relatives taunted the bridegroom for not having provided enough. The bridegroom �lost face� and was overwhelmed with shame (�hiya�). In the evening, they found the humiliated and tormented host hanging from a tree. He killed himself out of desperation and shame. What was meant to be a joyful event became a tragedy.



In light of this story, which took place in an Oriental context, it is easy to imagine how unfortunate and critical was the situation of the wedding party at Cana when the wine was running out. Harold Buetow comments: �To run out of wine at a wedding was more of a humiliation for the couple than it would be today. For one thing, hospitality in the East was a sacred duty; for another, running out of wine would show poor planning, or � worse - the couple�s lack of prosperity, which would mean the absence of God�s blessing.� In this distressing situation, Jesus Christ dramatically manifested the compassion and the saving power of God by changing water into wine, thus prefiguring the abundant joy and intense happiness of the messianic age that he would bring. At the wedding of Cana, there was a renewed epiphany of God�s love and mercy through the miraculous intervention of his beloved Servant - Son, fully consecrated to the realization of the divine redemptive plan.



The miracle performed by Jesus at the wedding in Cana has a profound paschal and eucharistic significance. According to the evangelist John: �Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs at Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him� (Jn 2:11). In the biblical world, a �sign� is the initial manifestation of the reality to which it points. The �sign� of water being changed into wine at the Cana wedding feast foretells the way in which Jesus would fulfill his messianic mission, namely, by shedding his blood on the cross, and the glory it would bring.



Adrien Nocent remarks on the sign motif and the eschatological significance of this narrative: �We should note, in this context, that the wedding at Cana took place �on the third day� (Jn 2:1), that is, on the same day on which Christ later manifested his glory through his resurrection. This wedding feast, therefore, is the wedding feast of the triumphant Christ who came among us and showed the glory that he acquired by shedding his blood and that is still present among us in the Eucharist. He will give us a share in that glory at the wedding feast that is the eschatological banquet at the end of time, when he shall bring all together in love.�



Indeed, the victorious paschal sign of Cana continues in the sacrament of the Eucharist. According to the 5th century musician, Romanus, the Melodist: �When Christ changed the water into wine by his power, the crowd rejoiced, delighting in the taste of this wine. Today, it is at the banquet of the Church that we are all seated, for the wine is changed into the blood of Christ, and we drink it with blessed joy, glorifying the great bridegroom. For the true bridegroom is the son of Mary, the Word for all eternity, who has taken the form of a slave and who created all in his wisdom.�



The sign of Cana was marked with the presence of the �woman� of faith, Mary, the mother of Jesus. According to the evangelist John, at the wedding of Cana, there was the mother of Jesus (Jn 2:1). Mary discreetly and intuitively presented the dire situation to Jesus, evoking from him the �first sign� of salvation. John narrates only two Marian episodes in his Gospel account: Mary at the wedding of Cana (Jn 2:1-11) and Mary at the foot of the cross (Jn 19:25-26). According to the authors of the Days of the Lord, vol. 6: �Mary�s presence at the beginning and end of this uninterrupted course of events has, therefore, great symbolic meaning. Her intervention at Cana expresses the urgency of the people of the new era, who are impatient to see Christ�s glory. Standing at the foot of the cross, she is the symbol of the Church, which recognizes, in the crucified Christ, the Son glorified by the Father, and adores him in silence. This woman thus appears as the perfect model of the believer: �Blessed are you who believed!� (Lk 1:45).� Indeed, through Mary�s active role in bringing about the sign of Cana, the disciples of Jesus began to believe in him.
http://www.pddm.us/BBofWord-YC8.htm

It was a prefiguration not an actuality.
Pani Rose

Just a personal clairfication...
When I said my mind is stuffed up, I meant with a virus... Thanks

As an Orthodox Catholic the change of the bread and wine into Our Lord's Body and Blood during the Epiclesis is a mystery as well as a miracle and it is not necessary to disect or to investigate the change and give it a name, at least for me anyway. We do not claim that a change takes place at "one" particular moment but "during" the prayers of invocation. It is good enough to know that a change has taken place by the power of the Holy Spirit. I am continually in awe of this most holy of mysteries and it happens every Liturgy. Life dosnt get any better than this.

JoeS

Which is a perfectly legitimate thing Joe.
Stephanos I