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

David,

I believe I read something on the same lines as your post in Thomas Aquinas' posthumous publication, "Its All Straw, Folks."

I think that Fr. Kimel has made some exceptionally good points.

We humans have the tendency to want to "understand" both the physical world around us as well as the non-physical realities of our existence such as love, hate, etc. To make use of philosophical principles to distinguish between the external, empirical reality of "bread" and "wine" and the reality of this particular Holy-Spirited bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ is just our poor attempt to understand what the Lord said to us. Granted, it's nowhere near "perfect" in capturing the reality, but it works - at least for a goodly number of people.

To dismiss the philosophical framework upon which theology is constructed is to devolve into fundamental Unitarianism: there's a God; that is all. Go kiss those trees.

If one doesn't make use of the philosophical framework to construct theology, then I'm terrified of what the un-philosophical will do with concepts like "soul", "grace", "sin", "life", "death" and -- Saints-preserve-us! - "salvation". While philosophy may seem like an arcane science, akin to gnosticism for some, it is the only method by means of which we can link the notions/ideas of our faith. If one doesn't like this then one must be reduced to fundamentals: it all comes down to love of God and love of one's neighbor. Easy.

Blessings!

Of course the simple formula [it all comes down to love of God and one's neighbor] begs a question which is:

From where did we get that simple formula?

The answer: the word of God as recorded in scripture, as carried down to us by His Church. So the origin and interpretation through time of the simple formula matters. If we want to be true to it, then we accept the context from which it comes to us.

Any interpretation which ignores the context of the original creator of the thing being interpreted will always be victim to relativism.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dr. John,

You make an excellent point. Without the use of philosophical concepts (often the most precise) we would be left with an alternative that would probably be much worse. Athanasius used some pretty high and mighty philosophical jargon to defend the apostle's teaching on the nature of Christ (ousion) and we're all glad that he did it, right? That's how these things work. You do the best with what you have.

But of course, I never said that we shouldn't use philosophical concepts and vocabulary to aid theological effort. Mine was simply a warning against overconfidence. They can be helpful sometimes, but not always as helpful as we'd like to believe. Sure, philosophical jargon helped St. Thomas explain what the church teaches about the eucharist. They didn't, however, and couldn't possibly have, explained the mystery.

My point is just that philosophical discourse is limited in the same ways that every other human discourse is limited, i.e. by culture, context, finitude, perspective, etc. Let's make use of the tools but never forget their limitations.

And we don't know what words like metaphysical, substance, accident, and the like really mean, however helpful they may be. We know what they mean in relation to the other words that the Scholastics used to describe reality as best they understood it. But scholastic metaphysics is only one way to describe reality. Do you think that there really are substances and accidents out there? Does the Church's use of this language to dogmatise about the nature of the Eucharist entail that these things exist? I think this is an interesting question, and I suspect the answer is no. The Church's teaching is true and infallible even if it turns out that scholastic metaphysics is not. What do you think?

Nothing's easy.

Peace,

David

Dear David,

You also "have hit the nail on the head," if I may say so.

A blessed feast of the Annunciation to you and yours.

In Christ,
Andrew

Ah, herein lies the rub: "The Church's teaching is true and infallible even if it turns out that scholastic metaphysics is not. What do you think?"

While I agree in principle, the question remains: we use language to express belief. And language is necessarily both social and contextual. How we interpret what one or another has said (including even the words of the scripture) is dependent upon other circumstantial realities. Unfortunately, unlike mathematical propositions: a+b=c, words are not immutably defined.

So, while we can postulate that the Church's teaching (in language) is eternal and true, the fact remains that it is always going to be interpret-able, because language changes over time. And when one goes from one language to another, we have some serious issues; and when the interpretation goes from one language to another OVER TIME, we are in even deeper trouble. It's just a basic fact. And mandates real catechesis and study, and - dare I say it - scholarship in language and culture.

The word: "transubstantiation" was derived in the context of scholastic philosophy and theology. To use it outside of this context is to open the door to the 'anything-goes' school of theology. If one wishes to abjure scholasticism, that is fine. But be careful NOT to use scholastic terms outside of their context; this is truly 'walking on the wild side' theologically.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

I read your post and find that I disagree with absolutely nothing that you've written. I love it when this happens.

Blessings to you,

David

Fr Aidan Nichols offers the following thoughts in his book The Holy Eucharist. They may be relevant to this thread:

Is the language of substance and appearances (Trent does not use the word "accidents") truly tied to scholastic philosophy in such a way that one cannot understand what Trent is saying unless one has taken a course in scholasticism? I don't think so. Perhaps this is true in order to understand St. Thomas's analysis, but I doubt it is true to understand the dogma as articulated by Trent.

Before the Eucharistic Prayer begins, we ask, What is that that sits on the altar? and we answer, bread and wine. After the Eucharistic Prayer we ask the same question, but now we answer, the body and blood of Christ. The consecrated elements appear to us as bread and wine, but in reality they are the body and blood of Christ. If I understand Trent correctly (and I may not), this is all the Council intended by its use of the word "substance."

Is there any culture on earth that cannot find a way to say this?

Faithfully,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I'm sure every culture can find a way to say this. And if THAT is all that is meant, then there really hasn't been any explanation. Things are just as miraculous and mysterious as ever. And that's fine, of course.

I don't have a problem with the lingo as long as it's understood for what it is.

Peace,

DL

Precisely! Transubstantiation is not an explanation of the Eucharistic mystery. It is an affirmation of the mystery as defined over against insufficient or unacceptable statements (e.g., consubstantiation, memorialism, etc.)

In the Anglican/Roman Catholic aggreement on the Eucharist, we read the following:

Pax,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

Dear Father Kimel,

That's a fantastic quote, and will probably be as helpful in dialogue with Orthodox as it was intended to be in dialogue with Anglicans. How should I respond if someone challenges the validity/authority of this document? Do you know where I could find it?

Thanks,

David

I wave my magic wand, say the appropriate words [no epiclesis!] and ... VOILA

ARCIC Windsor Statement [members.rogers.com]

ARCIC Eucharist [prounione.urbe.it]



AFK+

Dear Friends,

Fr. Kimel and Dr. John make important points born of in depth philosophical and theological training.

The point on Transubstantiation, I would insist, isn't a general philosophical OR theological one, from an East-West comparison.

Both sides agree on the theology of the Eucharist and of the change that takes place.

It is a subjective distinction we are talking about here, rather than an objective one.

To reject "Transubstantiation" is not to reject the fundamental doctrine it conveys.

It is to reject the subjective, spiritual-cultural aspect of it that reflects Latin spirituality and not Eastern spirituality.

The two aspects, objective and subjective, exist simultaneously, and those dealing with theology often confuse the two, taking the former, dealing with doctrine, on the same footing as the latter.

The same occurred here when our friend, RayK, believed, sincerely, that by rejecting Augustinian notions of Original Sin, Easterners are rejecting "Original Sin" altogether, or else have an "underdeveloped" notion of Original Sin - which I tried to show him was not the case at all.

In another example, Mike and Teen Logo believed I was rejecting the Papacy if I didn't accept the Pope's authority over the Particular Latin Church as its Patriarch etc.

Theology, given its affinity with philosophy, has always needed, I believe, the perspective of the behavioural sciences on human culture to bring a better balance about with respect to the objective and subjective that is not always differentiated - to the detriment of theology and especially of ecumenism!

Alex

Alex wrote: Alex, I'm afraid you have lost me here. Can you specify for us this subjective dimension about transubstantiation that Eastern Christians reject? Thanks.

Fr K

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!

Yes, the "subjective" side that Eastern Christians reject with respect to Transubstantiation is what we perceive to be its "mechanistic" and even "philosophical" aspects.

For Eastern Christians, Transubstantiation is often understood as something that occurs "automatically" and definitively by the Priest pronouncing the Words of Institution.

There is almost a sense that there is a much greater "logical" understanding about what happens in the mystery of the Eucharist via Transubstantiation - when the East prefers not to philosophize about the Mystery, but to bow in worship before it.

This Eastern perception of how the West views the Eucharist is supported, from the Eastern perspective, by the Western Adoration of the visible Eucharist in the Monstranced. For the East, the Eucharist is worshipped and bowed before as a "Mysterium Tremendum" and not as something that can be related to in this way.

This is whay I mean by my use of "subjective" aspect of Transubstantiation.

Again, "objectively," there is no difference between East and West.

Alex