www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The early churches weren't transubstantiationist

An interesting question. On the face of it it seems to be the belief of the various Orthodox Synods of Bishops who have approved the use of Western Rite that without an Epiklesis the Mass is invalid. Hence all Western Rite Masses have an Epiklesis inserted. I have spoken to one of these bishops (Antiochian) and he said that the insertion of an Epiklesis into the Western Rites is not simply a matter of liturgical discipline mandated by the bishops but it is an essential sine qua non for an authentic Mass. Interesting viewpoint...

However we are digressing from the topic of the thread....

Does it matter whether the Roman Canon has or has not an epiklesis? The dogmatic teaching of Florence is clear that the full and complete power of transubstantiation belongs to the divine words of the Saviour. An epiklesis is superfluous.

"...quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent" ~ the divine words of the Saviour possess the entire power of transubstantiation.

Source :: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is simply giving us the teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439-44) in the actual words of the Council.

Such has been the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church for the last 500 years. I cannot see what other teaching the Encyclopedia could expound.

If the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church has been wrong for the previous 500 plus years then I think we need to see such a statement from a Council of the same significance and authority as Florence. Can the private opinions of individuals contradict and outweigh the teaching of an Ecumenical Council which has been ratified by the Pope?

It's curious how this thread has developed. A couple of thoughts:

First, it's important to differentiate the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, as defined by the Council of Trent, from the speculations of specific theologians. While it might seem obvious, e.g., that the Tridentine dogma is identical to the position of Thomas Aquinas, in fact it is not, and it is not treat as such by most Catholic theologians today.

Second, is is accurate to say that the consecrated elements are bread and wine, as Fr Ambrose appears to be suggesting? I do not believe that an appeal to the Fathers will resolve this for us. I agree that a couple of the Fathers, Gelasius and Theodoret, for example, can be cited in support of positions that might be group under the label "consubstantiation," but there are other Church Fathers who do not appear to fall into this category--e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem. John of Damascus, who has also been quoted, is interesting, as he appears to be advocating something closer to impanation, at least that is the judgment of Constantine Tsirpanlis in his book Introdution to Eastern Patristic Thought and Eastern Theology.

An interesting question is whether consubstantiation faithfully represents the Orthodox view. Having read a lot of Orthodox writers on this subject, I suspect that it does not. Orthodox writers appear to treat consubstantiation most favorably when they are engaged in polemical arguments with Catholics; but they are not nearly so favorable about consubstantiation when they talk, say, to Lutherans. In non-polemical contexts they seem most comfortable simply asserting the bread and wine have truly become and now are the Body and Blood of the Lord. The assertion is not one of co-existence but of mystical identity. To quote Paul Evdokimov: "In summarizing the teaching of the Fathers, beyond any physical conversion, for the eyes of faith after the epiklesis, quite simply there is nothing else on the diskos and in the chalice except the body and blood of Christ."

I would also like to mention one consideration that was decisive for Thomas Aquinas and others--namely, eucharistic adoration. When we adore and worship the eucharistic elements, are we adoring creatures? If we are, then how are we not guilty of idolatry? Aquinas solved this problem by insisting that the eucharistic elements have ceased to be the substances of bread and wine. We adore only the Body and Blood of the divine Son.

If Orthodox theologians are going to reject transubstantiation, then they need to show how their understanding of the eucharistic conversion does not commit them to idolatry.

For my own very fallible thoughts on this subject, see my essay "Eating Christ [scribd.com]."

Father,

I need to clarify my position with a personal statement. I personally do not believe the consecrated elements are bread and wine. I believe they are the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My concern in this thread focuses on the link in the Opening Message which predicates that the theory of transubstantiation is the be-all and end-all of our understanding. I contest that and have tried to show that the Fathers have had varying ideas and theories, none of which the (Orthodox) Church has officially adopted as her dogma.

I would see that as an unreal question. We could ask how Catholics avoid idiolatry when they worship the Eucharist? Can we we sure they may not be worshipping the species and not only the substance?

Father, believe me, if village Catholics can distinguish between the species (usually known as the attributes) and the substance and if they can avoid the idolatry of worshipping the species, village Orthodox are capable of doing the same!

And your question must be asked of all the Christians of East and West of the first millennium who had not heard of transubstantiation? Pope Saint Gelasius, Saint Irenaeus, Saint John of Damascus, Saint Symeon the New Theologian... How were they not committed to idolatry? We know they were not and the Orthodox, who simply continue the first millennium traditions, are no more guilty of idolatry either.

And does that reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church today, any more than Florence reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit?

The were reacting in ignorance (I have read serious Orthodox theologians from the turn of the century who insisted the Latins removed the Epiclesis from the Canon), and in doing so were mirroring the belief of the Latin Church of that time that the transformation occurred at the Words of Institution. Today, both Catholic and Orthodox theologians have restored the Patristic understanding of the entire Anaphora as being the act of consecration, and that there is no "Kodak Moment".

This argument is, therefore, both silly and specious.

You would need to give evidence that the teaching of the Council of Florence, recognised as ecumenical and ratified by the Pope, has been abrogated. I would be happy to look at it, but all we have at the moment is your unsubstantiated personal belief. I doubt if Florence has been abrogated. I doubt if what has been the teaching for at least 500 years has been changed, viz.:

"...quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent" ~ the divine words of the Saviour possess the entire power of transubstantiation.

Source :: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm

The not unimportant question is: when may a Catholic adore the Bread and Wine as the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ without committing idolatry?

Dear Stuart,

My brother reminded me of a document issued in the Year of the Eucharist in 2005. The teaching contained there is identical to that of the Council of Florence in 1444.

"At the centre of the Eucharistic Prayer are the Lord’s words of institution over the bread and wine. This is the consecration, the solemn moment when the Risen Lord becomes really present under the elements of bread and wine."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s..._20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

In another document issued for the same Year of the Eucharist we read:

"The Lord’s words are spirit and life (cf. Jn 6:63). Christ works together with the Holy Spirit, while remaining the one consecrator of the Eucharist and the dispenser of the Spirit. The Council of Trent has established that the epiclesis is not essential to the validity of the Eucharist."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s..._20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

You have directed me to seek, not the teaching of Florence 500 years ago, but that of the Catholic Church today. I have sought it and I have found it. These documents ARE the teaching of the modern Catholic Church. They are a mere 4 years old.

What the Holy Father said is true for the Latin rite--and when the Pope speaks on such occasions, it is the Latin Church he is addressing.


I don't think that you would find any Orthodox theologian who disagrees with this. Christ is the priest and the sacrifice, the offeror and the offering. And, within the Latin rite, an explicit Epiclesis is not necessary--it did not require the Council of Trent to say this, merely sufficient knowledge of the development of liturgy.

There was a time when the liturgies of the Christian East did not have an explicit epiclesis, because it was not necessary to stress in that way the role of the Holy Spirit. Such an express statement of the role of the Holy Spirit was not needed in the Latin Church for reasons specific to its historical development. Such a statement did not become necessary in the liturgy of the Church of the East. It did become necessary in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, for reasons specific to their history.

But, in fact, the oldest stratum of the Tradition sees the entire Anaphora as an act of consecration, and in each particular Church, that consecration is completed in accordance with the rite that it follows. Some have an epiclesis; some do not. Most have an institution narrative; one does not. The teaching of the Catholic Church is the ancient rites of all the Apostolic Churches are equally valid and efficacious, precisely because the entire Anaphora, and not one particular element thereof, is the means by which bread and wine become Body and Blood.

Stuart,

You asked me to look at the teaching of the Catholic Church today. I have done that.

The 2 documents issued in Rome for the Year of the Eucharist 2005 do not agree with your ideas. For starters they specify the exact moment (the document uses the word "moment") when the bread and wine become the Risen Lord... with the words of institution.

They do not address the ancient situation of the epiclesis in the 4th or the 10th centuries. They address the situation of the Catholic Church TODAY and they state, very explicitly, that no epiclesis is needed.

But, as Father Kimel told you, it isn't the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is, at best, the proper usage of the Latin Church.

And, if you would stop acting like a proof-texting Protestant fundamentalist and instead read what leading Catholic theologians have written, you would simply concede that I am right and you are wrong. I get tired of your constant attempt to play "gotcha" with the Catholic Church by reading documents out of their proper context. One could do the same thing with the Nomocanons, you know.

As for the situation today, I would have to agree, no epiclesis is needed--in the rites that do not have an epiclesis, just as no institution narrative is needed in those rites that lack an institution narrative. It is the duty and obligation of each particular Church to celebrate the liturgical rites it has received in the most perfect and complete manner possible, which means using the texts and rubrics as they have developed over the centuries.

What is done or not done in one rite has no impact or reflection on what is or is not done in another rite. As Father Taft has noted, liturgies are like languages--they are organic, and each develops according to its own rules. Some languages lack articles, others have them. That does not make one superior to another, nor would a language that lacks articles be improved by their addition, nor a language that has articles be improved by their removal. They would simply cease to be the languages that they were, and become something else. It is the same with liturgies: some have multiple anaphoras, some have just one; some have an epiclesis, others don't. Some have an institution narrative, others don't. It does not make one better or more efficacious than the others. All celebrate the Eucharist of Christ; in all the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood by which we are transfigured.

As I said, you make distinctions without a difference, and are raising an issue settled long ago to the satisfaction of informed people on all sides.

The Lineamenta was sent to the episcopal conferences, the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, the Departments of the Roman Curia and the Union of Superiors General, with the expressed request that they set aside time for reflection and prayer on the topic and respond to the questions which treated various pastoral aspects related to the Eucharist. Because of the means of social communication, this document received a wide distribution in the Church and the world. Under the guidance of the bishops, the entire People of God made significant contributions on the topic in preparation for the synodal assembly.

Responses to the Lineamenta and its Questions were sent to the General Secretariat by episcopal conferences, the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, the Departments of the Roman Curia and the Union of Superiors General. Observations also came from bishops, priests, men and women religious, theologians and the lay faithful. Both are contained in the Instrumentum laboris.

See

2004 Lineamenta

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s..._20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

2005 Instrumentum Laboris

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s..._20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html