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

Dear Alex,

Did you mean to say "Western" Christians instead of "Eastern" Christians here?

Dear Qathuliqa,

No.

Alex

Dear Alex,

So are you talking, then, about the perception Eastern Christians have of the Western teaching on transubstantiation? I am honestly having a bit of trouble figuring it out, and that's why I'm asking. Maybe it is just one of those weeks!

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

Yes.

The Eastern perception has tended to see the RC Transubstantiation as being something that flows from the sacramental power of the Priest rather than from the Spirit in the Epiclesis with the Priest passively invoking the Spirit.

So the Priest, in the West, in pronouncing the Words of Institution is taking the place of Christ at the Mystical Supper and is doing what He did.

The East denies this and sees the Words of Institution as an historical narrative with the Holy Spirit in the "active sacramental" role here.

Again, it is a subjective view - objectively there is no real difference.

Alex

And Alex's point explains why Orthodox Theologians do not look upon the Last/Mystical Supper and insist that the apostles consumed the Lord's body and blood at that Passover meal. But ever since He Himself became the Passover sacrifice, they and we do consume His body and blood.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, this is a very interesting point you have made. Can you recommend an article or book where an Orthodox theologian discusses the Last Supper in this light. Thank you.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

Dear Reader Andrew,

But is this explanation a "normative" one for Orthodoxy?

If Christ said, "This is My Body," can anyone assume that it was otherwise?

Or is it simply a difference between two types of Communion - the Mystical Supper having been effected by Christ Himself directly and the Divine Liturgy, beginning with Pentecost, being effected by the action of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit in the Epiclesis in particular?

You see, I didn't have the benefit of attending St Vladimir's Seminary!

But it sounds like you guys who did had a very stimulating intellectual time of it!!

Alex

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I'll take a look at Father Breck's books and my notes from his classes this evening and see what I can find. I recall that he made this point, but I could be mistaken.

It is not something that I ever sought to pursue further as it just seemed so obvious that He is our paschal lamb sacrificed on Holy Friday.

I'll go out on a limb and say that we may find the explanation that I offered to be the mind of the Eastern Church only because we may fail to find patristic writings which speak of the Mystical Supper as the first eucharist. But obviously, it points to it.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Ah, yes!

Not being a theologian, you will have to bear with me.

It is clear that Orthodoxy understands the Mystical Supper as something quite distinct from the Divine Liturgy, eventhough the Divine Liturgy is a continuation of the Mystical Supper.

The first Eucharist ever then was celebrated by the Apostles on Pentecost and it does symbolize the Mystical Supper.

Whatever . . .

Alex

Ahhh yes, Alex is back!

I think that if we keep the "do this in remembrance of me" part of it close at hand then we see that he is speaking of what "we" will do to remember "Him" and have Him with us after He departs. While He is there, they don't need to "remember" Him.

At the Mystical Supper the apostles commune with the real presence of Christ, his body and blood present. At the eucharistic meal we commune with the real presence of Christ, his body and blood present.

All meals should be a kind of communion. Eating is taken so casually in much of North American culture that people fail to realize this.

It's so good to have you back, sun tan and all!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Thank you for your gracious welcome back!

You are so learned that I can only hope to sit at your feet and gaze at the light that emanates from your face - tanned or not!

Certainly, what you said resonates loudly at the appearance of Christ near Emmaus. When the two disciples recognized Christ in the breaking of the bread, He disappeared physically from sight etc.

And at the Mystical Supper Christ did tell the Apostles to "Do this in remembrance of Me."

But He was surely referring to the future Eucharist without this having any impact on the reality of what He Himself was doing at the Mystical Supper?

And if the Apostles were already communing with Christ in His Real Presence among them at the Mystical Supper, why did Christ give them the Bread and Wine, having declared it to be His Body and Blood?

If, as you argue, there was no need for the Apostles to commune of the actual Eucharist at the Mystical Supper because Christ was Personally among them, does not that also hold true during the Divine Liturgy when we really commune of His Body and Blood, even though He is really among us (where two or three gather)?

I don't see the theological necessity of having Christ ontologically present in only one mode at a time and that where He is already present in one mode, He cannot be also present in another (ie. Holy Communion).

Christ is not only present in Holy Communion in the Divine Liturgy, but throughout.

Anyway, what do I know?

Alex

Andrew, I look forward to hearing from what you learn from Fr Breck's lecture notes. This is an interesting question.

However, some of the Fathers did offer contrary opinions. Here are a couple testimonies:

St. Aphrahat the Persian (4th century): St. Augustine: St. John Chrysostom: St. Ephrem:

Dear Fr. Kimmel, Alex, et. al.,

I'll confess that Patristics were my weak point. Thanks for the patristic quotes. I hope that you don't find too many others .

During a course titled, "The Synoptic Gospels" (New Testament 201) I wrote notes from our instructor's lecture on 16 October 1995:

*****
Mark is fond of detail, but "the green grass" is only at Passover. This feeding of the 5,000 is a paschal context/image. He takes and receives that which he sent the disciples to find. No epiclesis until Pentecost. The words of institution in the upper room are not the eucharist but the institution of the eucharist.

Proleptic implies participation, but fullness is to come later. 4 verbs: take (what is God's), bless (bless God in Thanksgiving), break, give (to the disciples).

II Kings 4 Prophet Elisha "bringing the man of God 20 loaves of barley....how shall there be enough?" 12 baskets of broken pieces are left over meaning that the whole of Israel (12 tribes) has been filled and more is left over for the Gentiles to be fed.
*****

I believe that one of the instructor's points was that these actions (the institution of the eucharist and the feeding of the 5,000) are meant to point toward a fulfillment of these actions in the future, after all (the cross, the resurrection on the third day, the glorious ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand) has been accomplished.

This same point was also made earlier in the day's lecture:

*****
Luke: Christ sends out 12 and later 70. 12 were uneventful. 70 came back rejoicing. A dual track revellation of Jesus to his disciples and the seventy. The seventy foreshadow the Pentecostal Church.
*****

Some of our books were:

The Gospel Image of Christ, Veselin Kesich
The First Day of the New Creation, Kesich
Authority and Passion, Bp Demetrios Trakatellis
Spirit of Truth (part 1), Rev. John Breck
The Power of the Word, Rev. Breck
The Shape of Biblical Language, Rev. Breck
The Message of the Bible, Cronk

I hope that this is useful.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Brethren,
Again a case of semantics - I think both East and West are one in the faith.
If the West understands the "change" to take place at the "words of institution" by the priest, it is still the Holy Spirit which brings about the change. Let God be God! Stop spliting hairs.
Peace and Blessings,
Stephanos I
Unworthy Monk and Arch sinner