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

Dearest Khrystyna,

Yes the school is LCMS. And I generally have no complaints at all with the school or what it teaches (at least on the preschool level )

It was this one issue where my son exceeded the teachers 'comfort zone' with Catholicism.

And of course, that was just the teacher. Her particular viewpoint cannot be taken as representitive of the school, parish or even the synod as a whole.

I must admit though, the whole incident made Daddy proud

BTW, here's a link to him saying his 'Ave'

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bnewell100460/sounds/KieranAve.mp3

Yours in Christ,

Brendan

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your most interesting exposition on Jan Hus. I was familiar with some of his history but not as widely as you have given in your post.

The spiritual links and chains born at the Reformation are fascinating. And yes, many Lutherans are most proud to call themselves Evangelical Catholics. There is a beautiful Lutheran Church in Pittsburgh that is as catholic as they come. One of the pastors, the Rev. Phillip Pfatteicher many years ago wrote a small manual of devotions for Holy Communion that drew from Orthodox, Anglican, Roman and Lutheran sources. It is a gem and I still use it to this day.

Khrystyna

Dear Scotus,

I just listened to your little guy's recitation of the Ave Maria. Precious!!

Khrystyna

Dear Brethren,

Our server has been down and up and so I've been unable to follow this discussion closely. I apologize. I did say that I would look at some modern references.

Certainly Fr. Schmemann's "The Eucharist" emphasizes Christ's presence throughout the liturgy. What he is really saying, if one reads him well, is that Christ doesn't come down to us, but that we go up to him/heaven. Perhaps, rather than thinking that the body and blood join with the bread and wine offered we should be understanding that the we are attempting to join the bread and wine to His already sacrificed body and blood. In other words, He is everywhere, and we are just trying to uncover or find him. (These are my own words/interpretation). This doesn't mean to imply that the Holy Spirit does not descend upon the gifts or that the people do not receive His true body and blood!

I think that Schmemann wanted us to get away from the idea of liturgy as something we do and then God shows up. He is trying to get us to think of liturgy as something going on in the kingdom, and we are trying to break into it and bring our small, childlike offering of bread and wine to the heavenly liturgy.

I find it to be most correct.

Further, Fr. Hopko's The Orthodox Faith, volume ii, Worship, when speaking of communion, speaks of the people receiving the consecrated bread and wine. Again, there is no veiled attempt to deny the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ, but perhaps, a subtle reminder that we encounter Him together with our simple material offering.

Perhaps, in other ways during our daily lives, icongraphically, for example, we uncover the Christ that is in our midst.

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Andrew,

Very interesting. The early Calvinists took that position but not in the sense that Fr. Schmemann means, I am sure. Since Scripture said that Christ, after His ascension was now seated at the right hand of the Father he could not possibly be "called down" from Heaven to be located on the altar. Of course, in His glorified state He can now be present anywhere at any time and is truly present everywhere.

Uniting our gifts and our humanity with His human/divine nature I am awed that Christ joins us to His own perfect sacrifice of praise, offered continually before His Father in the heavenly liturgy to which the Church on earth joins her worship.

Khrystyna

Greetings. I just discovered this thread. I started a thread on transubstantiation on the Faith and Worship area a few days ago, in case you haven't seen it.

Just a couple of thoughts in response to some of the thoughtful questions and arguments advanced above.

Regarding the question of the "moment" of transubstantiation. While the Western Church has definitely placed great emhasis on the words of institution, it has never (at least so I am told by one who knows these things) dogmatically defined this opinion. Most contemporary Catholic theologians and liturgists acknowledge the silliness of past debates with the East and typically steer away from identifying a specific moment of consecration. They understand that the verba is but one part of the entire prayer of consecration.

It is important to remember that for most of its history, the Latin canon of the Mass never contained an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine. Indeed, it's quite likely that the Eastern Eucharistic Prayers did not have such an explicit epiclesis until the 4th century.

One contributor raised the question of the elevations at the Words of Institution. This is my practice also, even though in the Episcopal rite an explicit epiclesis follows the words of institution. How do we justify this practice? This is how I have tentatively settled it in my mind:

The Holy Eucharist, in its entirety, is one prayer that is offered to the God who transcends our time. His "time" is not our time. Consequently, he does not experience our prayer in a sequential way. It's not as if he is waiting to hear the words of institution or the epiclesis before he answers our prayer to change the bread and wine. Moreover, the Divine Liturgy is itself an event within the eternal life of the Holy Trinity: It is offered to the Father, through Jesus Christ our great high priest, in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a participation in the eternal liturgy of heaven. The "temporal mechanics" of God's conversion of the oblations of bread and wine into the body and blood of the eternal Word must, therefore, always remain a mystery to us.

Within the liturgy of the Eucharist, which is one prayer of consecration, there are "moments," however, which explicitly identity the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ. It is therefore proper to understand these moments as events of consecration and to offer adoration to the Eucharistic Christ now present on our altars.

As I mentioned, the Latin Church has not had, at least since the 6th century, an epiclesis in the canon (and perhaps it never did); consequently, the words of institution have enjoyed an especial importance as a moment of consecration, especially since the 13th century. It is quite understandable, therefore, why the West eventually decided to ceremonialize the words of institution as an event of consecration and to offer adoration to Christ at that moment. Let us also remember that the introduction of the elevation of the consecrated elements for purpose of adoration occurred at a time (1) when the congregation was typically not receiving communion and (2) the devotional and spiritual needs of the laity were demanding outlets of expression. There was a profound desire to "see" the Eucharistic Christ: It was reported that in one church in England, in the late 13th or early 14th centuries, parishoners were heard to yell at the priest at the moment of elevation: "Hold up, Sir John. Heave it a little higher!"

If I may be so bold, Eastern Christians really should make greater effort to understand the Western experience of the Mass and the adoration of the Eucharistic Christ. A good place to begin would be In the Presence of Our Lord by Benedict J. Groeschel and James Monti. The East has never felt this particular need to "see" Christ in the Eucharist, as the visual element of devotion has been fulfilled in the veneration of icons.

The Western adoration of the Eucharistic elements at the words of institution need not deny the "consecratory function" of the epiclesis, just as the Eastern emphasis on the epiclesis need not deny the consecratory function of the institution narrative. It is important to also note that the consecratory power of the verba is implicitly acknowledged in the Eastern liturgy. The priest speaks aloud the words of Jesus and the congregation responds "Amen"! Centuries later polemics, of course, led Eastern theologians to deny what the liturgy in fact declares; but the fact remains that the Eucharistic Prayer of St. John Chrysostom, from very early on, declared the consecratory importance of the words of institution. This, of course, does not mean that the epiclesis does not also enjoy consecratory importance. Once again, we should not think in terms of either/or but both/and, for the Divine Liturgy is one unit of prayer.

(to be continued)

Alvin+

(Part II)

Regarding the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation: It is quite likely that Luther himself never taught such a doctrine. It is also quite likely that the Protestant Reformers, outside perhaps of Luther and some of his followers, never truly understood the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation. For whatever reasons, when the Reformers heard the word "substance" all they could think of was the physical reality of an object. But of course, "substance," as understood by scholasticism, is not a physical reality but a metaphysical reality.

Luther's concern was to simply and unequivocally affirm the identity of the consecrated elements with the body and blood of our Lord. If you were to have asked him, "After the consecration, what is the "bread and wine?" he would have replied "the body and blood of Christ." In fact, he understood this presence in such a realistic fashion that he applauded the first oath submitted to Berengar stated that in the Eucharist the faithful actually grinds Christ with their teeth. There are lots of problems with Luther's teaching here, but the real presence is not one of them. However, later Lutherans probably have taught what is traditionally called consubstantiation: Christ is present in, with, and under the elements, but the elements themselves are not the body and blood of Christ. The body and blood of Christ is given along with the bread and wine.

In my experience, Eastern theologians sometimes do sound like they are teaching something akin to consubstantiation. Consider, for example, this statement from an Orthodox seminary professor (in a private communication to me):

I know that a Catholic theologian would have serious reservations about this statement. If one says that the being of the bread has not in fact been changed, does that then mean that when we adore Christ in the Eucharist, as both East and Western Christians do, that we are committing idolatry because we are worshipping a creaturely reality? The Eucharistic change is not one where Christ assumes bread and wine into hypostatic union with himself (impanation). This is why Eucharistic transformation cannot analyzed through the Incarnation. Rather, God changes the oblations into the body and blood of Christ. I am not suggesting that this professor is guilty of heresy or anything like that. I am simply suggesting a lack of precision here that makes his statements open to misinterpretation. As much as some contemporary Orthodox theologians may dislike the Eastern Eucharistic affirmations of the 17th century (the Confession of Mohila, the Confession of Dositheus, the decrees of the Council of Jersualem, etc.), they do helpfully clarify the Orthodox understanding over against the beliefs of the Reformation. See the following hyperlink: Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation [bringyou.to] . And consider the following citation from the distinguished Greek theologian, Panagiotes N. Trembelas (1961):

I do not understand the present Orthodox reluctance to affirm the judgments of the 17th century Orthodox bishops and theologians. Respect for the Eucharist does not necessitate fuzzy thinking on our part, especially in the light of false Protestant teaching over against which even Orthodoxy must now define itself. And may I also iterate that transubstantiation, as defined by the Council of Trent, is not a metaphysical explanation of the mystery of the eucharistic change. It is simply an assertion of the mystery. Orthodox theologians and believers really need to stop charging Catholicism with rationalism here. No doubt some Catholic theologians have over-indulged in such rationalism--perhaps St. Thomas can even be accused of this, though that is debatable--but it is the Tridentine formulation that is the dogma, not a specific theologian and his private opinions. And it is certainly true that post-Vatican II theologians are insistent that the dogma of transubstantiation does not attempt to explain HOW God changes the bread and wine. It simply states that God really does change them--really, truly, and substantially.

One final comment. The Orthodox seminary professor whom I quoted above mentions that transubstantiation shows a distrust for matter. I think this is a completely wrong. Transubstantiation does not assert a physical change of the elements; it asserts a metaphysical change. "Substance" simply states what a thing really is. To say that the consecrated bread and wine are no longer "really" bread and wine is to say that their metaphysical status has now changed. They are no longer bread and wine as we understand and experience bread and wine. The change that has occurred is so deep and profound that to continue to use the words "bread" and "wine" for the consecrated elements (as we find in Scripture and the fathers) is to engage in a form of metaphorical speech. The physical elements that appear on the altar (i.e., the species or appearances) no longer present the substance of bread and wine to us. They efficaciously signify to us the body and blood of our Lord which they now sacramentally "contain." Thus matter is in no way annihilated in the eucharistic conversion. It is rather elevated to the higher status of sacramental signs of the Eucharistic presence of the eternal Son of God.

Oh, by the way, I am not a Catholic myself. I am a high church Anglican and I rarely use the word transubstantiation in my parochial teaching.

Alvin+

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!

You are an Episcopal priest! Did you know I've written a Byzantine Akathist to King Charles the Martyr that the Society of King Charles has just published?

Now on to business . . .

The fact that the West has never defined when Transubstantiation occurs actually means very little with respect to the issue of "Moment of Consecration."

Liturgically, if the priest holds aloft the Host following the Words of Institution for the adoration of the people, then this truly does mean that the people are worshipping Christ's Real Presence then.

Goar, for example, goes into some detail on this and refuses to admit any other meaning to the Words of Institution than what they directly say - which is why he admitted a "double Change," one with the Words of Institution, changing the bread and the wine, and the other with the Epiclesis, producing, as he said, "moral changes" in the communicants.

In fact, while the West has a penchant for defining matters, the practice of "lex orandi, lex credendi" holds true here - and is a part, as you've so comprehensively explained, of the historical liturgical tradition of the Particular Latin Church.

The question that only a Westerner can really answer is why the Epiclesis, in those Western liturgies that had them, was downplayed in subsequent centuries. And also how this was connected to what some perceive to be a downplaying of a more active liturgical role of the Holy Spirit in the celebration of the sacraments in the West. That role is quite monumental in the East, as you know.

Actually, the East DOES have an appreciation for the Western emphasis on the static devotion to the Eucharistic Christ.

But it isn't a positive one!

The "visual element" in devotion to the Eucharist has NO parallel to the icons, but to the way the East approaches the mystery of the Eucharist as such.

What the West wants to expose and show, i.e. the Host, is, in the East, covered up and worshipped as the Mystery it is - icons have nothing to do with it in this instance whatever.

In fact, if the Host actually DID take on the form of Christ as He is in Heaven for all to see - that truly would be something for all the Churches to show during the Liturgy!

The East maintains the historic dynamic understanding of the Eucharist within the context of Trinitarian theology and Theosis.

Static adoration of the Eucharist in Monstrances etc. underscore the Western understanding of the Incarnation, that God humbled Himself to come down to share in our humanity.

For the East, the emphasis is not on God's coming down to become Man, but on our being raised up to the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit through the Divine Liturgy and Holy Communion which is meant to be worshipped of course, but within the context of the Divine Liturgy and our participation in Holy Communion through which we are united to Christ and the Holy Trinity and intensify our experience of Theosis.

In addition, the East sees an alarming historical trend in the West to truly downplay the dynamic role of the Holy Spirit - something that the whole "Filioque" controversy reflected as well.

This led, in the West, to a certain clericalism and heightened status of the person of the priest who spoke the words of Institution in the place of Christ.

The Eastern priest isn't seen in that exalted role, but as the humble minister who recites the Words of Institution, following the Anamnesis, and then invokes the Spirit to fulfill in fact what the Words of Christ portend.

The emphasis is on the action of all three Persons of the Trinity within a prayerful context of the Eucharistic Canon.

Granted, in recent times, the Western Rites have come a long way to restoring a better sense of the process of the Eucharistic Canon, rather than the sacerdotal model that undergirded the devotion to the "Moment of Consecration."

As you've said yourself, we cannot know the exact moment and that is not an appropriate theological exercise to try and determine it.

The most we can ever be sure of is that the Change has already taken place following the end of the Eucharistic Canon, or after the last "Amen" of the Epiclesis.

For the East, to say "This is my Body" and then to expect the change to take place because the priest speaks in the place or name of Christ is a form of "clerical presumption."

The Eucharistic Canon is a prayer invoking the Trinity Itself to effect the change which is why there can never be a "moment of consecration" but a "point after which there is no longer any bread or wine on the altar."

The inclusion of the Epiclesis before the Words of Institution in a number of Western liturgies has united the ancient understanding of the Eucharistic Canon not as a "formula of consecration" but as a prayer, within the context of the wider prayer of the Mass or Liturgy, that makes the sacramental process present within time.

In the Canon, Christ comes down to us in the Liturgy as He did in His Incarnation, but to take us up to His Kingdom with Him, to transfigure us through our participation in His Deified Body in the Spirit to the Glory of God the Father.

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Fr. Kimel,

Yes, as you know, Lutherans allow for belief in either Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

I've also heard Catholic theologians expound on the Eucharist that, at the time, I thought was really Consubstantiation.

As one said, "The bread is not the Body of Christ, but the Body of Christ is somehow IN the bread . . ."

Also, I think that simply because one Orthodox theologian said something like that isn't sufficient to assume that this is the teaching of all of Orthodoxy.

To quote St John of Damascus in his work on icons: Just because one sparrow has sung does not mean that spring is here!

Ultimately, however, I believe that what that theologian said and what the West understands by "accidents remaining after the Consecration" is one and the same thing.

The East has also paid closer attention to the notion of "symbol" than the West - and I believe this caused the Western Catholic Church no end of grief during the Reformation.

The Protestant Reformers maintained that if the Eucharist was "symbolic" then it could not be the "Real Presence." The Western Church at the time maintained the Real Presence, of course, but added that it wasn't "symbolic."

And the East would maintain both. A symbol points to something and represents that something.

But for it to do that, the symbol was partake of the reality of what it points to. That has always been the position of the East.

This is also why it is so important in the East for the Communion bread to be baked with yeast - bread that has "risen" and therefore represents the Risen Christ. And the wine must always be red to symbolize the Blood of Christ.

Yours in the Royal Martyr,

Alex

Remaining in respectful disagreement.

Bread and wine remain on the altar, changed by their union with the body and blood of our Saviour, but still retaining principle characeristics of bread and wine, including nourishment and joy.

Whether we look at a model of theosis or the model of the incarnation of God, in both cases the divine and the human each fully maintain all of their respective attributes.

Is Christ not fully human in all ways but sin? And is not sin outside of human design? As many have said before, he was the perfect human, as human is meant to be. All of the others are subject to death whose "sting is sin."

So the bread and wine that we offer for consecration/sanctification [like the human that offers him/herself completely to God] becomes bread and wine in the way that they are meant to be, and fully in union with God's body and blood.

Isn't this God's desire, that we would be changed and come into union with him, but not obliterated? He even has a name for us that we don't yet know (see Genesis). He wants to bring us to our true vocation in union with him.

These are the models that we point to when discussing the eucharist.

So, searching further in Fr. Hopko's "The Orthodox Faith" volume ii, Worship; I found another casual reference that supports these points:


"The clergy then receive communion from the bread (XC), and drink from the consecrated cup."

No one should become upset by this. The bread IS the Body of Christ. But it is also consecrated bread. What is in the cup IS the blood of Christ, but it is also consecrated wine.

Christ, fully God and fully human. I think that God could do this also.

In Christ,
Andrew

PS: I might add that I do not see a reason why Transubstantiation would keep East and West from intercommunion. Is is not a dogmatic issue.

Dear Reader Andrew,

All right . . .

But if I get into trouble for agreeing with you, well, I'm not taking the blame . . .

Alex

Quote:

"Actually, the East DOES have an appreciation for the Western emphasis on the static devotion to the Eucharistic Christ.

But it isn't a positive one!"

Dear Alex,

Just a few comments and a question or two, arising from this quote, if I may.

The Roman Church shares the belief that the Eucharist is an essentially dynamic activity. That dynamic activity is the continuing act of Sacrificial Love of Christ through which we are made part of His Body. As such we join in making the act of Sacrificial Love in the Liturgy.

Christ is totally engaged in the Act of Love, in the Eucharistic Liturgy.

It is my understanding that the Eucharistic Christ is reserved for sharing with the sick and dying in the East as well as the West. I have been told that the practice of conserving the Eucharistic Christ is neither new nor particularaly western in its development.

In the East, is the Eucharistic Christ seen somehow less dynamic because this is outside of the Liturgical Celebration? Is He seen as being statec? Does He cease being dynamic, kind of frozen in place, at the end of the Liturgical Celebration?

Historical developments in the West led to devotion to the Dynamic Eucharistic Christ, so reserved. The fact that this practice has grown among us does not take an iota away from our love for or participation in the Liturgical Celebration of the Eucharist.

Devotion to the Eucahrst has become an integral part of the West's practices. Though this devotion has the need to see Christ as a basis, it has relational aspects to it as well. Seldom have I seen this reflected in the appreciation of the East for this devotion.

We simply want to show respect for Jesus as He is sacramentally among us in a way that makes sense to us. We want to develop our relationship with Jesus by visiting Him. He, after all, through His Churches, has allowed His Churches to keep Him among us in the Sacrament. He is the Dynamic Lord offering His Salvific Love!

The time spent in the presence of Our Eucharistic Lord is, I think, among the most dynamic interactions in life. It is a continuation of our interaction with Christ in the Liturgical action itself and in the Sacraments.

I cannot understand how one can claim to have a full appreciation of our Eucharistic devotion when it is seen as a "static" devotion. Is it not possible that there is an incomplete appreciation in the East, of one of the most important understandings of the Eucharist among Western Catholics ?

It is true that it is not an Eastern practice, in general. If I recall, though, you have cited examples of Eastern Christians who have practiced devotion. It is different and it arises from different historical experiences. Their appreciation of Eucharistic devotion seems to rise above that fact.

What is it about the Eastern appreciation of our Eucharistic devotion that led you to assert the above?

Does the fact that this is a Western devotion contribute to the appreciation that is not positive?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Steve,

I was quoting Archbishop Raya with respect to "static presence."

Yes, the Eucharist is reserved in the East as well, and no one is questioning that.

And Christ is certainly always "active."

This is simply a comparison of the devotional thematics of East and West in this regard.

The "dynamic" aspect of the Eucharist, and Christ is not only active in the Eucharist, is best expressed for the purpose for which Christ and the Church established it - through the Liturgy and Communion.

The devotion to the Blessed Sacrament does indeed have the potential and present a danger of taking away from a deeper expression of such worship within the context of the Mass.

This is an issue in Roman Catholicism, as I understand, for a number of reasons.

Again, I see it largely as a tradition of the Particular Latin Church. It is a tradition that has come under fire from some quarters and it certainly isn't what one would call "Eastern spirituality." But devotion to the Eucharistic Christ has been well represented in the Eastern Catholic Churches, nevertheless, call it "Latinization" or whatever.

The East focuses its devotional emphasis on the Kingdom of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit within what it considers to be a transcendent, spiritual framework.

The West has tended to be more naturalistic in its celebration of the Incarnation of God the Word, more realistic and even "materialistic" (I just know I'm going to hear from you for that one especially . . .).

To quote from Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

But it just isn't our style.

Alex

Thank you, Alex, for your two fine posts. If I may, I'd like to address several of your points.

You wrote:
Yes, of course. When the priest elevates the Host and the congregation adores, they are truly adoring Christ. But my primary point is that since we are, in the liturgy, dwelling in God's time, "before" and "after" kinds of questions are problematic. The fact that the Western Church decided to adore Christ after the words of institution, doesn't, for example, mean that a subsequent invocation of the Spirit upon the bread and wine is improper. I'm thinking here in particular of the Episcopal rite. The Eucharistic prayer follows the Antiochian pattern, yet the celebrant will often elevate the elements after the words are spoken over the bread and wine.

Let us hypothetically assume the traditional Roman canon, with no explicit epiclesis: Are you willing to declare that when the Catholic Christian adores Christ Jesus at this point in the liturgy, he is in fact actually adoring only bread and wine? I gather that in the past some Orthodox theologians have accused the West of artolatry because of its veneration of the Blessed Sacrament at this point in the Mass. But hopefully we are beyond such narrow thinking. After all, it's the Orthodox who are always reminding us not to rationalistically analyze the Eucharistic mystery.

You ask about why the epiclesis was down-played in those western rites that contained an epiclesis. I'm not a historian, but I suspect the answer has to do with the fact that the Roman canon eventually came to supplant all other Western eucharistic prayers. And this for political reasons and not theological ones.

You wrote:
Yes, I understand that covering up the elements is the Orthodox practice. Does anyone know when the Eastern rite started to do this?

What I am challenging is the Orthodox criticism of Western practice, which you have just presented. To compare the the two rites and to judge critically the piety and practice of one because it does not conform to the piety and practice of the other is, in my opinion, arrogant presumption. I do not summon the East to emulate the Western practice of Eucharistic adoration, but I do ask it to try to sympathetically understand and respect it.

Regarding my comment about eucharistic adoration and the veneration of icons, you have interpreted me in a way I did not intend. I suggest that all Christians desire ways to visibly adore and worship Christ outside of the Mass in a way that involves sight. We need, as Fr Groeschel says, a compositio loci. Eastern Christianity admirably fulfills this need with the veneration of icons. But Western Christianity had no such analogous practice. This void eventually came to be filled by the introduction of eucharistic adoration.

You wrote:

This, of course, is a common Orthodox polemic, and it is certainly one that should be put dismissed as unworthy. Within the linguistic world of medieval and Tridentine Catholicism, the word "grace" often functioned to signify the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. I myself prefer the more explicit Eastern practice and rejoice in the recovery of Spirit-language in the Western Church. The point is that one must not assume that because the Western Christian does not explicitly invoke the Spirit in his prayers that he is not praying for the Spirit of in the Spirit. As an outsider who has experience with both communions, I can tell you that the Holy Spirit is as active--or inactive!--in the life of the Catholic Church as it is in the Orthodox Church--and vice versa. The Catholic Church may have a problem with excessive institutionalism and centralized authority, but the Eastern Church has real problems with the conflation of ethnic and religious identity, as well as a stultifying traditionalism. Both communions often fail to live in the Holy Spirit.

And the common polemic that the filioque is somehow responsible for the institutionalization of the Latin Church is of course silly! It ignores the history of the West and the emergence of the papacy as the only center of civilization in the face of the invasion of the barbarians. I know that Vladimir Lossky liked to blame all Western ills on the filioque, but let's get real. Real life is not so easily reduced to such easy, flippant answers.

Regarding the role of the celebrant in the Eucharistic celebration, I acknowledge that there are differences in understanding between the two traditions, but again it appears that polemics tend to overexaggerate the differences. The Catholic Church is quite aware that the priest is not the one who changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The consecration is a work of the entire Trinity. The priest is simply a servant in this work. He lends his voice and hands to our Lord. Nor does the priest celebrate the Holy Eucharist in isolation from the community of the Church, though the priest enjoys a unique and special role within the liturgy.

I suggest that both communions need to understand the other at its best, not its worst. Differing emphases, different vocabulary and conceptualities does not mean that the other is to be judged deficient. A true ecumenism requires a sincere effort to understand the other sympathetically in the Holy Spirit. Real differences need to be acknowledged, but let's not magnify them for polemical purpose.

Pax,
Alvin+

(To be continued)

Quote:

"The West has tended to be more naturalistic in its celebration of the Incarnation of God the Word, more realistic and even "materialistic" (I just know I'm going to hear from you for that one especially . . .)."

Dear Alex,

Actually, I agree with you!

Thanks for the compliment!

Our appreciation of the Incarnation has led the West to a deep appreciation of the spiritual value of matter, the world, and the human. After all, Incarnation was into human nature and that involves matter. That is the way that God chose to come to us and bring us and His world to Him by the action of the Spirit.

We do tend to try to understand how we can cooperate with the Spirit in His Work. We seek to make it real in the material world among His sons and daughters. In that sense, we are indeed materialistic.

We find our identity in the Eucharist and the Sacraments and the Gospel teachings of the Church. We believe that we have been given the task to further the work of the Incarnation in the world in a way that calls that world to the Father. This is a thing of beauty.

Sometimes it seems to me that sometimes that we can become so enraptured by our religious search for God in the beautiful, that we forget to look for Him in all the other places where He may be found, in the nitty gritty, the real. This could be a danger and our loss.

So, yes, we are rational, realistic, naturalistic, and materialistic because we are looking for God in His gifts of matter and nature in the light of the Good News and our Liturgical and Sacramental lives. Then we express what we have been given in the same venues to bring them to God.

The wonder is that this leads us back to that Beauty Who Creates and calls us to Himself in His Son, through the working of His Spirit. I guess we meet you all in the Mystical.

Unity without Uniformity, I guess. Isn't there beauty and equal value in our approach and the Eastern? Does one have to be better?

Steve