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

Theodoret (5th century) - no transubstantiationist...

"For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as grain and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace."

Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm

You are making a ridiculous distinction without a difference.

The statement in the last message I sent is absolutely clear - there is no change in the nature or substance of the bread and wine.

But that does not work against the truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Yes, Theodoret appears to describe consubstantiation; lasting consubstantiation at that... Or maybe impanation.

Consubstantiation is heresy, tho'. So is impanation. At least to those in Union with Rome. Mind you, the first condemnations of consubstantiation, per the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, are in the 9th C.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm consubstantiation
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07694a.htm impanation

As an aside, some good discussion on the nature of the change is at http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm (which was referenced on orthodoxwiki under the entry for Eucharist.)

When you look at the anti-Catholic article that sparked this thread, there is a very foolish assumption on the part of the Protestant polemical writers that if they can show that the early Church writers did not know about and teach transubstantiation then that destroys any ancient belief in the Real Presence. Of course it does nothing of the sort. Transubstantiation doesn't come along until the second millennium with the importation of Greek Aristotelian thought into the West. But the Fathers had no doubt of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, no matter what theory they held to attempt to explain it.

The East does not see any major importance in any of the theories, including transubstantiation. It is a late comer to the scene, one thousand years post the first Eucharist in Jerusalem. It was unknown to the Fathers. As a theory it is of no more importance than impanation or consubstantiation or... It honestly puzzles the East why the Church of Rome has made it a dogmatic belief....

In another Forum Fr Deacon Matthew Steenberg presents a large number of quotes from the Fathers and he sums them up thus:

".. the fathers are certain that in the offering and sanctification the bread and wine are become the real, true, full body and blood of the Saviour; but they do not demand that it is no longer also bread."

To quote Rev. Fr. Steven Greskowiak: "It's a holy mystery. Accept it, throw a veil over it, incense it heavily, and move on." (Several occasions doing Adult ECF...)

In the case of Theodoric, he predates it's definition of heresy, IIRC. So he wasn't a heretic, tho continuing to hold his belief would render one such, under Catholic teaching.

But applying the typical Eastern Economia: accept that it's God, don't worry about how, and treat it as such.

I refuse to speculate on the hydraulics of divine grace.

I don't think that speculation is needed. The Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema...

".. anyone who saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation."

I don't know what that previous author has been smoking, but rest be assured, the only answer I give is the Holy Spirit. Without the Epiclesis, no transubstantiation will take place. So, in all, the Holy Spirit is my only factor for the transformation taking place. However, I just hold it as a mystery. To me, the Eucharist is rightfully a mystery and must be treated as such. To try and explain just spoils the lustre of the mystery.

That's an interesting mix - marrying the Western concept of transubstantiation with the Eastern epiclesis...

I am not sure if you can do so. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"The Catholic Church has decided the question [of the lack of need of an epiklesis] by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.

"...the Western position that the words of Institution alone and at once consecrate. The decree of the council [of Florence] eventually defined this "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

Implicit or explicit? The Roman Canon has no explicit epiclesis because its formulation predated the pneumatological controversies of the Christian East (and which had only minimal impact on the Western Church). Yet I doubt you would say the Roman Canon is insufficient for the transformation of the Gifts.

Similarly, the Anaphora of Addi and Mari, perhaps the oldest Eucharistic prayer in use today, lacks both an explicit epiclesis and an institution narrative; it embodies the older notion that the entire anaphora (if not the entire Eucharistic liturgy) is itself a single unfolding act of consecration.

Since the Church of Rome has acknowledged the efficacy of the Liturgy of Addi and Mari without the insertion of an institution narrative, all prior statements about the necessity of the Words of Institution appear to be null and void, while the absence of an explicit Epiclesis within the Roman Canon nullifies any statements about the necessity of the Epiclesis.

I also suggest that everybody stop using the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authoritative source. A lot of water has flowed down the Tiber since it was published.

Your points are very clear and good, Stuart
I would maintain, based solely on my linguistic instincts, that the original wording in the anaphora attributed to St John Chrysostom does not contain an explicit epiclesis. It would thus read, “…send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here presented so that They may be to those that receive Them for the purification of the soul…for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven etc.”
The words, “Thine own of Thine own…” with the accompanying gesture is ample evidence that the priest is offering, with the Son His own spotless and perfect oblation to the Father. The explicit epiclesis of “changing into” is a latter addition that neither adds to nor detracts from this reality.

Rev. Fr. Ambrose: The Roman transubstantiation at the words of institution can be seen as having the epiclesis prior to them; the invocation of the holy spirit upon the gifts is present in the roman canon, but it is towards the beginning of the anaphora, not following the institution narrative. Since both an invocation of the holy spirit (epiclesis) and institution narrative are requisite, both are present, just not in the byzantine-expected order of narrative then epiclesis.

As for Addai and Mari; it has both, but the epiclesis isn't explicit and post narrative, and the narrative is in the 3rd person, not the first.

It's not only in the third person, it's broken up by extensive discursive narration. For all intents and purposes, it is not there. I know, because I served at the altar during the celebration of the Qorbono by Mar Bawai Soro. As Father Robert Taft has noted, in Addai and Mari, the entire Anaphora is the consecration. As Mar Bawai put it, "We do what Christ did, not say what He said".

Neither an explicit Epiclesis nor an Institution Narrative are necessary for a Eucharistic Liturgy to be efficacious, and there is every evidence that the earliest ones had neither. Today, some have one or the other, or both, in response to the organic development of each particular rite. But there is no "magic moment" in the Liturgy at which one can say that the Gifts have been changed; the entire Anaphora remains a single unfolding consecration, and on that both Orthodox and Catholic theologians are in full agreement.

If so, then its addition to the Antiochian liturgy would be the work of Chrysostom himself, probably in response to the pneumatomachi.