www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Icon of the Trinity

Dear Adam,

I was hoping not to get confused or confuse anyone else by the terminology "transubstantiation and "consubstantiation." I was taught repeatedly that the Orthodox don't accept transubstantiation. I never was taught that we do accept consubstantiation. My entire understanding of consubstantiation is based upon what Petrus (John) posted above. Hence my use of the word "appears" is in reference not to the eucharist itself, but to the meaning of the word consubstantiation.

As I reiterate, I hope that it is clear. Both bread and wine and the body and blood are present in the chalice. This is a symbol [meaning two things seen together] of divine/uncreated with material/created. The bread and wine do not "go away." It is a parallel to the very incarnation of God [divine/uncreated with human/created] in the person of Jesus, the Christ.

I apologize if I was not clear.

With love in Christ.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Thanks, Andrew . That helped a lot. May God richly bless you from Zion!

Adam

Dear Theosis,

Perhaps I am wrong, but I do believe that Reader Rubis' explication is indeed the Lutheran "Consubstantiation" view.

The Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ are not "added" to the Bread and Wine on the altar.

They undergo "transmutation" and truly become the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ.

This is evident from the prayers of the Liturgy itself at the Canon.

The "appearances" of bread and wine remain which is NOT the same as bread and wine since their substance has been altered.

If the "bread and wine" don't go away, then what the Orthodox Church does when it bows down before the Holy Gifts is nothing short of a form of idolatry.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I shovelled a heap (several heaps) of snow these past days. Since I'm so into shovelling...

Your last point is right to the point. But we don't.

We don't make full prostrations before the UNCONSECRATED gifts. Full prostrations should be reserved to the worship of the Lord. I have seen some faithful make such full prostrations before icons of the saints and even other living humans. I consider this an error and have heard it taught to be such. Still, to be an idolater, one has to intend to be an idolater. These people are intending to worship God, they just don't have the technical point that the gifts are not yet consecrated. Let us say that they do this "in anticipation."

Now, a simple bow or half prostration is an appropriate form of veneration toward the unconsecrated gifts, icons, and people.

Add to this the practices outlined previously:

(a) During a normal Divine Liturgy on a Sunday or a week day, we supplement the consecrated eucharist in the chalice with wine when we "run low" because of a long line of communicants. We also don't kneel (full prostration) during the Great Entrance. And

(b) during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts of Pope Gregory Dialogos, we do kneel during the entrance because the procession has with it the presanctified (consecrated) gifts supplemented by the addition of wine.

There is no doubt that change takes place to the material offerings. As in the Liturgy of John Chrysostom "...Make these gifts...Changing them by Your Holy Spirit..." But, change takes place to material things even without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. (For example, the gutters on my house are slowly changing for the worse.)

The Liturgy of St. Basil takes us to the words, "...and show these gifts to be..." This idea reckons back to the Apostles' recognizing the Lord after the Resurrection in "the breaking of the bread." He spoke with them at length as they walked on the road, but they did not recognize him until He did something which caused them to remember Him.

It is a battle between anamnesis = not forgeting vs. amnesia = forgetting [which is what we do most of the time].

And so the Lord is present, but we don't readily discern Him. Because we are in need of categories along which to think and organize our lives, we say, 'here He is now, present in this eucharist, after we have said these words.' And we are correct to do exactly that because He gave us those categories and those words. But can we say that because we don't say those words that He is prevented from being present? We say "Christ is in our midst." Prior to saying those words, is He not present in our midst? Did we lay folks invoke His presence?

The best way that I found to get people to become comfortable with the whole idea of this symbol (the eucharist) was to relay the wisdom of a dear monastic who mystically said, "If one prepares and watches so as to receive the precious body and blood of the Lord, then that is what one receives. If one prepares and watches only for bread and wine, then that is just what one receives."

The monk was not saying that one could plan to receive from the chalice only bread and wine, [otherwise why would we be warned that "some are receiving unto their condemnation,"] but that the discernment to be made between bread & wine and body & blood is for the Lord to make. Our part is in the preparation.

In Christ

Dear Reader Rubis,

O.K., anathema withdrawn . . . for now

Alex

Dear Alex,

A more gracious foe for which one could not even hope, this you are!

I hereby release you from constantly using my ecclesiastical title. Some people would prefer not to be reminded of their mistakes (I did not specify if it was I or the bishop who made the error).

With love in Christ.

Dear Reverend Reader Rubis,

I like your title and I have always respected the Office of Reader!

As you sometimes take it upon yourself to "read me out," it is most appropriate.

And I need to be read out every so often . . .

Alex

Dear Andrew:

Did you really say:

"Both bread and wine and the body and blood are present in the chalice. This is a symbol [meaning two things seen together] of divine/uncreated with material/created. The bread and wine do not "go away." It is a parallel to the very incarnation of God [divine/uncreated with human/created] in the person of Jesus, the Christ."

So are we to believe that God became bread and wine to save us from our sins?

I do think that this Eucharistic question is ultimately Christological and Anthropological.

In a more serious reference to my smart--- quip above, Jesus was simultaneously human and divine. He is not simultaneously bread and wine and divine. I find this rather absurd.

Jesus did not assume the appearance of humanity, he was humanity. The body and blood do not assume the appearance of bread and wine, the bread and wine ARE the body and blood.

This body and blood then are consumed and transform us (that theosis thing). If we take the consubstantial view, then we run the risk of devolving the Eucharist into mere symbolism.

Also I must disagree with your statement:

"If one prepares and watches so as to receive the precious body and blood of the Lord, then that is what one receives. If one prepares and watches only for bread and wine, then that is just what one receives."

I think of my little children who don't prepare or watch for anything. To them, if you asked, they would say that it was bread and wine. Yet they are transformed by the Eucharistic presence. This is not an intellectual exercise. Rather, I would submit that it requires a "sacrifice of the intellect." How can I adequately prepare? How can I even begin to comprehend?

In this sense I agree with the Protestants. There is no work that is sufficient to earn this gift. I do not earn the Eucharist, I am graced by It despite me.

In regard to:

"but that the discernment to be made between bread & wine and body & blood is for the Lord to make. Our part is in the preparation."

The Lord freely gives without discernment. If He discerned between us (some would receive bread and wine, others body and blood) then he would have predestined some of us to annihilation!

And finally, as to whether Christ alone died, I seem to remember reading somewhere that "he gave up his Spirit." Those other two members just couldn't seem to leave him alone even for a minute.

John

One final thing:

I think that the Orthodox conception of the Eucharist is closer to transfinalization (I find this to be consistent with our theosis concept) or transignification (see my definitions, page 6).

A point in support:

If you recall the iconoclastic controversy and the way the Eucharist was discriminated from the veneration of icons, you will recall that the Eucharistic elements are not considered icons or symbols. They have always been considered to be the real thing. That is why we do not have a tradition of veneration of bread and wine. The image is not passed on to the prototype because it is already the prototype.
John

Dear John,

You are right of course.

I think Andrew sometimes lets his great theological education go to his head . . .

Alex

Gentlemen:

Alex, you were doing just fine until you went ahead and agreed with John.

John, Let me be frank and say that I am getting a bit frustrated, but certainly not angry. {We are allowed to get angry, according to the scriptures, but we are not supposed to let the sun go down on our anger. So, I've got ten minutes...} I feel as if you are not reading my posts varefully and so I find it necessary to reiterate. I believe that I say nothing new here:

You are muddying the waters by using "symbol" in the manner that I tried to steer us away from (for the duration of this discussion). I was hoping that we could use it as it originally was used, and is still used, in Greek.

Sinvolon/symbol is one thing in which two things are seen together. It doesn't represent anything or stand in for anything, but it is what we call these two undiminished things when they are seen together. A symbol is a name for a something that has two constituents.

So a parallel of the incarnate God and the eucharist runs like this:

Incarnation: Divine/Uncreated (God) assumes the Human/Created (Jesus of Nazareth). We testify that this Jesus is fully both Divine and Human.

Eucharist: Material/Created (bread and wine) assumes the Divine/Uncreated (body and blood of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ).

So the eucharist is simultaneously material/created and divine/uncreated. That is why it is a symbol.

I really don't know why appearances have entered into this discussion, unless because of an Aristotelian predisposition of participants from which I have declared myself both ignorant and immune. Where in the scripture does it say that Jesus Christ didn't look like God? Where did it say that God doesn't look like Jesus Christ? In whose likeness and image were we created? When we see Jesus Christ we see both God and Man. In this discussion, with the sinvolon understanding of the word, Jesus Christ is a symbol.

When did I say that the body and blood of our saviour appear in the eucharistic symbol as if they were bread and wine? The eucharist is these two things seen together? When we look at the eucharist we see both bread and wine and the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This symbol we call the eucharist.

Throw away all discussion of "appearances." Seems simple to me.

My reference to discernment is clearly to the ability of one to view the symbol and discern which part is body & blood and which part is bread & wine. Likewise, can one look at the incarnate God and tell us which parts are human and which are divine? I definitely indicated that one can not pick and choose to have "some wine with a little body of the Lord today, please."

I went out of my way to point out that those who are receiving may be receiving unto their condemnation. This means that they are receiving the body and blood, but should not be doing so for any number of reasons such as those specified in the scriptures (hating your brother) or those other myriad of unrepented sins enumerated in the canons. The Lord may allow one to receive his precious body and blood when one shouldn't, but one must be aware that it may well be unto one's condemnation.

No one can receive bread and wine unto their condemnation!

My ten minutes is up!

With love in Christ.

Dear John,

The sun is up here on the east coast of North America! The sun brought with it a good example of a symbol to which everyone should be able to relate!

Green.

Green is a symbol. It is not a symbol FOR something or REPRESENTING something. It is a symbol on its own.

What are its constituent parts? Blue and Yellow!

When we look at Green, we believe and know that Blue and Yellow are the constituent parts, although we may not be able to exactly discern where each is or whether Yellow was added to something Blue or Blue was added to something Yellow.

Put down a prism, and all of the Blue will rush out at one angle and the Yellow at another.

We don't all have that prism, that same spiritual insight to discern well His presence at all times. Some saints see the icon of Christ in every person. Some have seen the energies of God. But for the rest, He tells us when and where He will be present for certain, "when two or three are gathered..." "do this in remembrance of me..."

Just like the Holy Spirit, we never say where the Spirit is not, we only affirm where It is for sure (which is: "in the Church").

In Christ.

Andrew,

Since "green" is a symbol on its own, can you describe "green" in itself? Let me put it this way: If I was an alien millions of light-years away and contacted you and you mentioned "green" and I wanted to know what "green" was, since I don't have eyes (I'm an alien, remember?), then describe "green" to me.

Dear Andrew;

I don't mean to cause anger, but I again must disagree with you!

I have never heard or seen your definition of symbol:

"Sinvolon/symbol is one thing in which two things are seen together. It doesn't represent anything or stand in for anything, but it is what we call these two undiminished things when they are seen together. A symbol is a name for a something that has two constituents."

The traditional definition of symbol is: "something through which something other than itself is incarnated and encountered."

Therefore, I must ask you for some type of reference.

Furthermore, if you accept your definition above and your statement below:

"Where in the scripture does it say that Jesus Christ didn't look like God? Where did it say that God doesn't look like Jesus Christ? In whose likeness and image were we created? When we see Jesus Christ we see both God and Man. In this discussion, with the sinvolon understanding of the word, Jesus Christ is a symbol."

...than can you say that the Son images the Father and the Holy Spirit as symbol and as such can then be depicted in the OT icon of the Trinity?

With to the color green, I would maintain that when blue and yellow merge, they become something completely different. Bread is not the mere amalgamation of flour, water, egg, sugar, and yeast. It is something completely different. Similarly when the bread and wine become the body and blood in the Eucharist they too become something completely different.

(Also, aren't blue and yellow and green, using your analogy, just arbitrary components of white? Conversely, doesn't green have a different wavelength then blue or yellow?)

If you are considering green in and of itself, then, you are confusing symbol and sign (see symbol definition above). Sign means "something which arbitrarily points to some other thing extrinsic to itself." That is what Joe T is implying.

For example, Green is a sign of Pentecost it is not a symbol of Pentecost. The same can be said for Green as the color of spring, the color of the Irish and so on.

Your brother in Christ;

John

This may help.

http://www.kyberco.com/Rotasolis/symbole.htm